Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 71

I had the privilege of spending some time in Rome during the month of February, serving as chaplain to a choir tour and enjoying the hospitality of the Crosier community at S. Giorgio in Velabro. Part of that trip included attending the consistory at which Pope Francis created a new set of cardinals, a ceremony at which Emeritus Pope Bendict XVI was also present. Obviously I was not able to keep up with my article-by-article reading of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but I hope to return to a more regular reading today.

Vatican website translation:

71. The rite of confirmation is to be revised and the intimate connection which this sacrament has with the whole of Christian initiation is to be more clearly set forth; for this reason it is fitting for candidates to renew their baptismal promises just before they are confirmed.
Confirmation may be given within the Mass when convenient; when it is given outside the Mass, the rite that is used should be introduced by a formula to be drawn up for this purpose.

Latin text:

71. Ritus Confirmationis recognoscatur etiam ut huius Sacramenti intima connexio cum tota initiatione christiana clarius eluceat; quapropter renovatio promissionum Baptismi convenienter ipsam Sacramenti susceptionem praecedet.
Confirmatio, pro opportunitate, intra Missam conferri potest; ad ritum autem extra Missam quod attinet, paretur formula ad modum introductionis adhibenda.

Slavishly literal translation:

71. The Rite of Confirmation is also to be reviewed so that the intimate connection of this Sacrament with the entirety of Christian Initiation might be brought into the light more clearly; on account of which the renewal of the promises of Baptism might properly precede the very reception of the Sacrament.

Confirmation, as the occasion warrants, can be conferred within Mass; however for the rite which is used outside of Mass, a formula to be employed in style of an introduction is to be prepared.

The Council Fathers give very few directives concerning the reform/renewal of the Rite of Confirmation for the Roman Rite, but their overarching guideline is clear: Confirmation is to be considered within the context of the other Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, [first] Eucharist). In addition to the decree of promulgation dated 22 August 1971 from the Congregation for Divine Worship, Pope Paul VI also issued an Apostolic Constitution concerning the Sacrament of Confirmation entitled “Divinae Consortium Naturae” and dated 15 August 1971. In that Apostolic Constitution he decreed and constituted by his Supreme Apostolic Authority that from this time forward in the Latin Church (Roman Rite) “the Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred by the anointing of Chrism on the forehead, which is done by the imposition of hands, and by the words: ‘Receive the sign of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.’” This declaration attempted to mediate between a school of thought that held that the central sign of the sacrament was the anointing with chrism and another school of thought that held that the central sign of the sacrament was the imposition of hands. In addition, the pope changed the verbal formula by which the sacrament was conferred from “I seal you with the sign of the cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” to the text given above on the basis of historical scholarship and deepened reflection on the meaning of the sacrament.

Pray Tell readers may wish to discuss: 1) how well the reform of the rite of the sacrament of Confirmation has been received in the Roman Rite; 2) how clearly we have catechized people about the meaning of the sacrament; 3) what further reforms might be appropriate for inculturating the celebration of this sacrament.

Michael Joncas

Ordained in 1980 as a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN, Fr. (Jan) Michael Joncas holds degrees in English from the (then) College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, and in liturgical studies from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN and the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico of the Ateneo S. Anselmo in Rome. He has served as a parochial vicar, a campus minister, and a parochial administrator (pastor). He is the author of six books and more than two hundred fifty articles and reviews in journals such as Worship, Ecclesia Orans, and Questions Liturgiques. He has composed and arranged more than 300 pieces of liturgical music. He has recently retired as a faculty member in the Theology and Catholic Studies departments and as Artist in Residence and Research Fellow in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

21 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 71”

  1. Jack Feehily

    Confirmation continues to be problematic. We have succeeded to some extent to raising its profile as a sacrament of initiation especially through the RCIA. However some people are puzzled when we confirm children of catechetical age following their baptism. I’ve known of priests who refuse to do this because they believe it should be conferred on adolescents. The latter practice seems to be a ploy to get teens to remain in RE classes longer……before they are given confirmation as one of the “last rites.” It’s hard to suspend disbelief when it is obvious that the chrismation following the baptism of little children completes that action by conferring the gift of the Holy Spirit. How obvious? Have you noticed the only Chrismation that follows the baptism of older children and adults is called confirmation?
    I’m for delaying Holy Communion to 4th grade and confirming them beforehand. Children of that age are also ready to comprehend the purpose and effects of the sacrament of penance. Surely, common sense should prevail over the well intended sentiments of Pius X. By the way it was his decision to move communion back to 7 which resulted in confirmation’s downplay as a sacrament of initiation and enabled it to drift further away from Baptism.
    I have a beef about the practice of the bishops chrismating while trying to lay the same hand on the heads of the candidates. Let the congregation sing Veni Sancte Spiritus while he lays their hands on their heads, returns to the altar for the confirmation prayer, and then Chrismates them.

    Reply
  2. John Kohanski

    When did it change? I recently found my mother’s Confirmation/First Holy Communion certificate from 1935. She was Confirmed on a Thursday and went to Holy Communion the following Sunday.

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      John Kohanski :

      Pius X led the push for Communion at an early age, around 1905. I am surprised it had not reached your mother’s parish? diocese? by 1935.

      Reply
      1. John Kohanski

        @Jim McKay – comment #7:
        Jim–she was 7 when she was confirmed and made her First Holy Communion.

  3. Todd Flowerday

    1. We’ve barely touched reform in most places. This counts as a failure on par with Penance and the Liturgy of the Hours.

    2. Not well at all.

    3. We lack the unity in the Roman Church to hope to accomplish anything right now. Maybe 2030. We haven’t really solved Baptism yet–we need a better practice of discipleship there. Maybe Confirmation falls into place once we get Baptism right.

    Reply
  4. Ann Olivier

    I’m amazed to hear that in 1935 someone was confirmed and a few days later received First Communion. I received my first Holy Communion in 1936 at age 6, and I wasn’t confirmed until 6 years later. Here (New Orleans) Confirmation always came years after First Communion.
    We were taught that Confirmation came second because it “confirmed” our earlier commitment in Baptism, a commitment which, of course, was made by our godparents. This made no sense to me — how can somebody else commit you as a Christian?).
    What does theology tell us about the relationships between the three sacraments?

    Reply
  5. Scott Pluff

    The church does not have a universal coming-of-age ceremony, so we have forced Confirmation to fit that role. With so much emphasis placed on becoming an adult and making your own choice for the faith, we have a lot of toothpaste to stuff back in the tube if we ever try to move confirmation to a younger age.

    Reply
  6. Sean Keeler

    Our diocese has experimented for a number of years with the “appropriate” age for Confirmation. Half of the parishes do it in conjunction with, and immediately prior to, First Holy Communion (age 7-8).The other half wait for Confirmation until the individual is in high school (age 14-16). There are proponents for each.

    Arguments for early Confirmation center around the Church’s belief in age 7 as the Age of Reason. The kids can thus make up their minds, and they’re going to need those additional Gifts of the Holy Spirit as early as possible.

    Those calling for the wait generally contend that older Confirmands are better capable of forming an educated acceptance of their responsibilities, are more aware of their Church and their God, and can knowingly commit to each

    From the practical side, those advocating later Confirmation also hope to keep their kids active in their Church education and youth programs.

    To the best of my knowledge, there have been no formal published findings, nor do I look for any. I don’t see the bishop standardizing any too soon.

    Reply
  7. Fritz Bauerschmidt

    At this point a number of diocese have been confirming at first communion time for a couple of decades, so it seems to me that some clever, enterprising person could do a study to determine whether the age of Confirmation has any impact on whether people practice their faith once they move into young adulthood (also, whether they come back to Church once they have their own children).

    It seems to me one of the conventional wisdom arguments for later Confirmation is that if teens make this decision for themselves they they are more likely to stick by it. My own experience doesn’t seem to bear this out — rather, Confirmation becomes an exit point for many teens from Church practice — but I’d love to see some data.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #8:

      The only data that seems to be available is that out of the 178 Catholic dioceses in the US only a handful (less than 20, I believe) adopted Confirmation before First Communion as a standard practice. Of those, some then returned to their previous practice. It would be interesting to know whether this was as a result of pressure from clergy.

      There has been a recent resurgence of interest in restoring the sequence of the sacraments of initiation, largely as a result of the urgings of Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver who has argued strongly for it (he started it when he was Bishop of Fargo). However, he has not yet produced a cogent rebuttal of those who say (as did the late-lamented Kevin Seasoltz) that you can restore the sequence all you like but if you don’t restore the chronology you’re wasting your time. (The Orthodox, who baptize, confirm and administer First Eucharist to babes-in-arms, still retain the original chronology in the sense that all three sacraments are administered in the same celebration.)

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Paul Inwood – comment #11:
        I am open to Seasoltz’s suggestion and would be interested is seeing his argument for the importance of chronology. But I am also inclined to think that restoring the sequence would be a good first step, even if not a sufficient one.

        Regarding chronology, recent shifts in magisterial teaching regarding the fate of children who die before the age of reason (i.e. the clear teaching of the Catechism that we have grounds to hope for their salvation) opens up the possibility of full initiation through Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist occurring at the time we currently celebrate First Eucharist. The theological pieces are all in place. Of course, theology aside, abandoning baptism of infants as our normal practice would be a huge sociological change and not one to be undertaken lightly.

      2. Matthew Morelli

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #12:

        I think you are incorrect to equate a “clear teaching of grounds to hope” for the salvation of children who die before baptism with the certainty of salvation that baptism brings — and given that the sentence following this teaching in CCC 1261 is “All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” Likewise, the CCC points out that infant baptism is “immemorial tradition” and quite possibly Apostolic in origin (1252), and that “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude“, and thus does not neglect to see that all who can be baptized are (1257). There is a clear preference to not delay baptism.

        Sociology aside, I think your interpretation (the acceptability of delayed baptism for the purpose of administering BCE together) does not fit the theology at all.

        If anything, restoration of chronology demands a Latin practice that looks more like the Eastern one — of Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist at infancy.

      3. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Matthew Morelli – comment #14:
        You are certainly correct that the Catechism clearly commends infant baptism as the norm, and I am not opposed to infant baptism (I do it myself on a regular basis). I guess I was just speculating about where an emerging theological trajectory might lead.

        Historically speaking, however, while infant baptism may be an “immemorial custom,” it was not always the normal custom, even for children of Christian parents. As near as we can tell, it was originally administered only to infants in extremis (speculation about “household” baptism including infants is just that — speculation). The normal pattern in the first few centuries seems to have been to delay baptism for a number of years. I suppose I am simply suggesting that there might once again be compelling reasons for a delay in baptism to once again be the norm and the Church’s preference for infant baptism could change without any fundamental change in our doctrine of baptism.

      4. Scott Smith

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #15:

        Deacon,

        Could you please expand, or perhaps provide a link, on what the “compelling reasons” might be?

        I am a bit lost on this one.

      5. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Scott Smith – comment #17:
        I didn’t have any particular thing in mind. Some have suggested (I am thinking in particular of Aiden Kavanagh) that in a situation where we live among the ruins of cultural Christianity, the kinds of discriminations we need to make in order to have a spes fundata (“founded hope” — canon 868.1) that the child will be brought up as a Christian might require a more extended period of time between birth an baptism that has been needed in the past. I don’t think that is where we are at the moment, but it might be where we are in the not-too-distant future.

      6. Scott Smith

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #18:

        Deacon,

        Thank you – That clears it up.

        Talking of theological trajectories, there is of course a developing view that a “founded hope” is not that important for baptism. I seem to recall Pope Benedict moved this way, and Pope Francis preference certainly appears to baptise any infant whose parents ask (perhaps on the basis the grace provided can’t hurt).

        But still, as you suggest, we could certainly move the preferred time for baptism if we did come up with compelling reasons. Any time from birth to the point of death really (given that such a change already happen in the time of St Augustine).

      7. Paul Inwood

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #18:

        Aidan Kavanagh’s position was that baptism should be delayed until the age of 21, which he considered the age of maturity. That caused a lot of shock-horror among clergy that he lectured to.

        I imagine, though I never heard him say this, that he was thinking of the years of infancy thru adolescence as an equivalent of the catechumenate. You grow into being a Christian. I also assume, but likewise never heard him say, that he thought baptism-confirmation-first eucharist should all be given in the same celebration at that age.

        Seems to me that Augustine had a lot to answer for: the Church’s obsessive preoccupation with sin for a start.

      8. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Paul Inwood – comment #20:
        Strange that he would identify 21 as the age. I recall him saying that delaying baptism was not so that people could make an “adult decision” (whatever that is), but so that people could have a memory of their own baptism (which hardly requires that one be 21). Of course, I would not put it past Kavanagh to say contradictory things.

  8. Fr. Ron Krisman

    There was an authentic interpretation of law concerning Paul VI’s apostolic constitution less than a year after its promulgation. As reported in the June-July 1973 issue of the BCL Newsletter:

    “On June 9, 1973, the pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of the Decrees of the II Vatican Council answered the following question: ‘Whether according to the norms of the apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae (August 15, 1972) the minister of confirmation, while anointing with chrism , must place his hand on the head of the person being confirmed or whether the anointing with the thumb is sufficient.’ The commission’s response to the first part: no; to the second part: yes. The reason is: ‘the anointing so carried out sufficiently manifests the imposition of the hand.’”

    The English translation of the sacramental formula also witnessed some early intrigue and alteration. The text in the 1972 provisional English translation of the rite was “N., receive the seal of the Holy Spirit, the Gift of the Father.” (Fr. Joncas’ “Receive the sign of the Gift of the Holy Spirit” is perhaps a more literal English translation of the Latin “N., accipe signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti,” but it never was the approved text in English.) The International Commission on English in the Liturgy explained that its provisional translation was deliberately chosen, and was not intended to be an absolutely literal or verbatim translation of the Latin, because a more literal “Receive the seal/sign of the Gift of the Holy Spirit” could be easily misinterpreted, as if the “gift” were a possession of the Spirit or a “gift” made by the Spirit.

    Nevertheless, on May 5, 1975, Cardinal Knox, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, informed the presidents of English-speaking conference of bishops that the sacramental form in English approved by Pope Paul VI is (and has remained), “N., be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

    So that raises another question: Is the present English sacramental form understood correctly, namely, that the “gift” being received is the Holy Spirit?

    Reply
  9. Lee Bacchi

    My sacramentology prof in the seminary summed it up well when he said, “Confirmation is first and foremost about the Holy Spirit. After we really start believing that, the other considerations (e.g., appropriate age) are all secondary.”
    Someone one described confirmation as “a sacrament in search of a theology.”
    My own preference is the Eastern tradition, and seeing everything else that follows as mystagogia.

    Reply
  10. Jack Feehily

    Why did the baptism of infants become normative? Was it not because of a fear that children who died prior to washing them clean of Augustine’s original sin would be denied the vision of God? Would anyone care to guess the percentage of parents who present their children for baptism in order to begin their full initiation into the Mystery of Christ’s death and rising? Is this practice not the result of a habit of doing things a certain way because we’ve always them that way. I am not a rigorist and have baptized countless children of parents who jumped through the hoop of attending a baptismal “seminar”, but this practice surely is at the root of the huge number of non-practicing Catholics. You can’t readily practice what you have not been shown how to do.

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Michael Joncas

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading