|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Confirmation or Admission to Communion
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Can I ask for some help with information about this ceremony particularly in Presbyterian churches.
I always thought that Presbyterians did not use the word confirmation but when I asked an Elder of the Kirk he said the word is used.The candidate has to make a number of promises about following the way of Christ,attending public worship, supporting the work of the church and then the minister puts his/her hand on the candidate's head and offers the right hand of fellowship.So do any of the Elders present.
Is this the standard for of a Presbyterian confirmation ?
At what age does this take place ?
Must one have been through the ceremony before beng admitted to Communion ?
Is the ceremony seen as an affirmation of faith on the part of the candidate or is there any sense of the gift of the Holy Spirit being given in a special way ?
And for Anglicans
do any or all Anglican bishops confirm by anointing with chrism ?
My questions are NOT about the rights and wrongs of any ceremony but rather how is it carried out and what does it signify ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Confirmation is a used term, look at the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand Website. I believe that confirmation differs from admission to communion.
Let me explain. Admission to communion (full rights and responsibilities of a church member) is technically a decision of the elders meeting within Presbyterianism (Church meeting within URC/Congregationalism). It may happen through the public affirmation of faith (i.e. confirmation) or it can happen through transfer. In situations when most people stay within an area for life then by transfer is rare. In more fluid situations then transfer can dominate. I have twice been admitted by transfer and only once by confirmation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
'Confirmation' is a bit of a tricky term in the Church of Scotland. Technically, it is not Confirmation at all as Catholic churches understand it: we have no theology of Confirmation as somehow 'completing' baptism.* The low-church tradition I grew up in simply talked about 'joining the church'. But either way, the ceremony involves making a public and adult declaration of faith, and also making solemn vows to serve God and the Church. It is most assuredly not a Sacrament, but is instead an Ordinance, rather as marriage is also an ordinance and not a Sacrament for us.
However, I find that the term 'Confirmation' is being used more and more, both by individual churches and the central church. The current Book of Common Order entitles the ceremony "Order for the Public Profession of Faith, Confirmation, and Admission to the Lord's Supper", which is a bit of a catch-all. The word tends to be used by more Catholic and/or liberal-inclined churches. Personally, I think our theology surrounding this is woolly in the extreme, but there you go.
Traditionally, one did not partake in the Lord's Supper until one had joined the Church: the 'confirmation' service takes place during a normal Sunday service, and is almost always followed immediately by a celebration of Holy Communion. However, now that we admit children to the Lord's Supper, our sacramental doctrine has got even more muddled, though there are very good reasons for admitting children nevertheless.
Anyone who has reached an 'age of reason' can ask to join the church. Technically even a five year old could join the church if they understood what they were doing, but for obvious reasons it usually takes place from mid-teens upwards. I myself joined the church aged 15.
What you describe re. the ceremony is pretty much how it goes, except that the Declaration of Faith precedes the actual 'Confirmation', but the Promises follow it. This is in keeping with our wider theology that our promises are a response to God's grace, and not a condition of it. It's the same with baptism - the promises made by parents or by the baptised adult should rightly follow the actual baptism itself.
Although this ordinance is a deeply holy ceremony and blessing, there is no invocation as such of the Holy Spirit, as there is in a Sacrament. Again, this is because we in the Kirk insist that God left nothing undone at baptism, and there is nothing on God's part still to be 'completed'. Rather, the ordinance of 'confirmation' is more about the adult signing the covenant of grace from their side. For example, one of the minister's prayers contains these lines:
quote:
Confirm in them the covenant sealed in baptism,
and send them forth
in the power of the Holy Spirit,
that they may fulfil their calling
as disciples of Jesus Christ ...
If you think about the whole thing in terms of covenant theology, it works!
Hope that helps. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
*I may well be misunderstanding Catholic confirmation on this point, or phrasing things badly, in which case please put me right!
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
And for Anglicans
do any or all Anglican bishops confirm by anointing with chrism ?
They certainly can. And do at the sort of place I attend.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
And for Anglicans
do any or all Anglican bishops confirm by anointing with chrism ?
They certainly can. And do at the sort of place I attend.
The use of chrism has become more and more common in the C of E in recent years. Like many customs, it used to be confined to high church bishops/parishes (the sort of place venbede attends?), but is becoming much more widespread. I think now that many bishops do it as a matter of course. It's a few years since I have been involved in any confirmation services but parishes were invited to opt for a service with or without the oil!
Obviously as its use is optional it can't be regarded as an essential part of the sacrament in Anglican teaching.
As far as admission to communion goes, the BCP (1662) says something like 'no-one shall be admitted to communion unless he [sic] has received confirmation or is ready and desirous to be confirmed' (wiggle room there). Again in recent years the General Synod has allowed parish priests to admit children to communion at an earlier age than customary well before their confirmation (though I think a bishop can veto this practice).
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
As a postscript to what Cottontail has written - the older CoS Book of Common Order has the title 'Order for the confirmation of baptised persons and for their admission to the Lord's Supper'; the form and content is much the same as in the newer book. My own experience - many years ago - was of a church that still had at least the vestiges of the communion season, with services of preparation and thanksgiving before and after the communion service itself. Confirmation was administered in the preparation service on the Friday evening.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
What Cottontail said.
In the United Church of Canada, which is Methodist in addition to being Presbyterian and Congregationalist (all at the same time), "Confirmation" is slang, admittedly extremely common slang, technically it is "Admission to Membership by Profession of Faith". An adherent must profess their faith in the Holy Trinity, period. That is the most the Congregationalists would agree to at the Melville Conference, 1908 which produced the Basis of Union.
We have a full Reformed system of Elders and Sessions so it is all done by the authority of the Session. Normally you have to go to a Confirmation Class to demonstrate that you are serious and to show passing knowledge of what you are professing in order for a Session to vote you in.
Transfer is a different thing, there is no re-profession required. You do get your "Lines", a transfer certificate, though.
On baptism, the United Church places the Act of Baptism itself after the promises, and always has. This may be our Methodism showing through.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
it used to be confined to high church bishops/parishes (the sort of place venbede attends?),
I've never yet attended a confirmation in Southwark. At my parish in London for the last two years we went to St Paul's for the diocesan confirmation. I'm pretty sure they anointed there. I'm sure I remember David Hope anointing at an Easter Vigil confirmation in the past.
Also we admitted children to communion at the age of 8 or so.
(Bishop Pete was impressive splashing water from the font over all within reach.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I was confirmed in November 2011 by +Guilford in my then church in Farnborough, which was pretty MOTR with slight charevo leanings, and chrism was used. I don't know anything about the bishop's churchmanship but I wouldn't have thought it was particularly high.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
What Cottontail said.
I've never used the term "confirmation" myself, and have assumed that any Presbyterian using it was "translating" out of Presbyterianese for someone else.
I joined the church at 17, as did my husband. IME, joining any younger than 15 is unusual. My 18 year old son hasn't joined yet, although he fully intends to do so; he wants more experience of different churches before making the commitment.
I took communion for the first time immediately after joining; but our current church allows anyone to take communion, and both my children have done so.
I found joining a less spiritual experience than I'd expected; possibly because I had a complete set of new clothes for the occasion, and my mother put a lot of emphasis on what I was going to look like. (Kilted skirt in black/ grey/white; white blouse; black velvet jacket, black tights; polished black shoes). Having said that I found my marriage ceremony not-very-spiritual either and for much the same reason (except with a white dress, veil and carrying flowers!), and yet here I am 31 years a member of the Church of Scotland and 23 years married. I am committed to the vows I took on both occasions.
There seems far less emphasis on looking smart when joining the church these days, and dressing soberly in dark colours, obligatory in my church when I was a teen, seems to have died out completely.
Cottontail, were you trigged out in black or navy for your first Communion?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
I don't remember any dress code other than Sunday Best, NEQ! I was probably in a skirt and jumper.
I do remember my poor little fingers being crushed to a pulp by all these male elders sincerely and vigorously giving me the right hand of fellowship!
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Presbyterians - as far as I recall - become communicant members. If there is a confirmation ceremony they must go through this before they become communicant members. If they change to the Anglican communion they must be confirmed in it. If they then jump to the RC church, they must be confirmed again.
Edited to add:
In Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, baptism is full membership of the church, so there is a move away from seeing confirmation as access to communion.
[ 08. January 2013, 09:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Episcoterian
Shipmate
# 13185
|
Posted
In the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, "Confirmation" was used in the 1937 Constitution as the means to admit to full church membership those who were baptised as infants. Adult converts were admitted by "Public profession of their faith and Baptism". The current Constitution (1950) has done away with the term "Confirmation", which is now used solely by Lutherans and Anglicans (who are too thin on the ground here). Roman Catholics use "Chrismation", exclusively.
Profession of Faith is requisite for Communion (we will welcome visitors, though). It is also a requisite for eligibility to deaconship and eldership. Non-communicant members have no political rights in the Church, and will be stricken out of the Membership Roll, should they fail to profess their faith until their 18th birthday. Since they had no political rights to begin with, it makes little practical difference (a HUGE emotional one, though, I believe).
To be admitted to Profession of Faith, one must attend the Catechumens' Class (which may last from three months up to a year in more strict venues), then pass an interview with Session. It used to be an oral examination on the Westminster Catechisms, but nowadays is just a chat about your faith experience.
The service is like the others have described. Catechumens are called forward, answer a few questions on basic Christian doctrine, make their vows, kneel, the minister prays, the ones who need to be baptised get "done", everyone receives imposition of hands from the elders, then the right hand of fellowship. Usually, also, a tight hug with three strong pats in the back. The three pats are a most Presbyterian thing, and are also heard (and felt) in Ordinations. Might have something to do with our former Freemasonry connections, but I'm not sure.
Transfer of membership doesn't have the same gravity and ceremonial. It's a purely administrative deal. You request it to the old church's Session, they fill out a Letter of Transfer and send it to your new Session, who then enroll you as a member. It's usual to call the new members forward and pray for them in the following service.
--------------------
"We cannot let individualism make corporate worship impossible!" (iMonk)
I'm on Facebook too!
Posts: 286 | From: Franca, SP, Brazil | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent alert
50+ years ago, at CofE Confirmations, girls wore long white shawls over their heads. At no confirmation I have been to in more recent years, have I seen this. Does any shipmate know why, when it died out or whether there is any diocese that still requires this?
It possibly dates me that in the days when I was confirmed, we were all given strict instructions that Brylcreem was forbidden.
End of Tangent alert
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Pg 17 of the PBS Journal has one such veil.
The Vicar of Great Torrington used to present candidates similarly attired but, from what I can gather, his successor takes rather a, well, different approach liturgically.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I think I am going to have to point out to some that Confirmation is not slang in the Reformed tradition but a marker of quite a specific tradition.
The full term would be "Confirmation of Faith", so in full admittance to communion on confirmation of faith. Thus tend to be used by the classical Reformed thinkers with a strong hint that faith is God's doing not ours and what is being confirmed is the evidence of the activity of sanctification within a candidates life.
Thus same term covering very different theology to those in the Anglican and Roman Catholic church.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
50+ years ago, at CofE Confirmations, girls wore long white shawls over their heads. At no confirmation I have been to in more recent years, have I seen this. Does any shipmate know why, when it died out or whether there is any diocese that still requires this?
It possibly dates me that in the days when I was confirmed, we were all given strict instructions that Brylcreem was forbidden.
End of Tangent alert
When my eldest sister was confirmed (Church in Wales, I forget the exact year, in the late eighties), girls had to wear white clothes(dress or a blouse and skirt) and veils. (I don't think they needed gloves).
When my middle sister was confirmed about five years later, no veils were needed but you still had to wear white.
By the time I was confirmed (I'm the littlest) you didn't even have to wear white, though I did anyway (I remember one of the other girls wore a bright orange dress!)
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ElaineC
Shipmate
# 12244
|
Posted
When I was confirmed - 1963 I thing is was - I wore a white dress, white gloves and a white veil.
My Mother had an argument with the Vicar over the veil. She wanted me to wear the one she wore at her own confirmation, the Vicar wanted me to wear one of the church's. Mother won and I wore hers.
--------------------
Music is the only language in which you cannot say a mean or sarcastic thing. John Erskine
Posts: 464 | From: Orpington, Kent, UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm wondering what the average age of a person getting confirmed is nowadays - if most candidates are adults or at least teenagers now, I'd imagine that is why they don't wear things analogous to RC First Communion outfits. Certainly when I was confirmed, only one out of 20+ candidates was a child.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
I joined the church at 17, as did my husband. IME, joining any younger than 15 is unusual. My 18 year old son hasn't joined yet, although he fully intends to do so; he wants more experience of different churches before making the commitment.
The standard UCCan practice is 12 and up; I've seen as young as 12 and 13/14 was always more the classic average.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I don't remember any dress code other than Sunday Best, NEQ! I was probably in a skirt and jumper.
I do remember my poor little fingers being crushed to a pulp by all these male elders sincerely and vigorously giving me the right hand of fellowship!
I joined the church in Inverness, where the C of S was probably influenced by the Free Church. I had a black velvet beret to match the black velvet jacket, but I don't think I wore it for my first communion, though hats for women in church were still commonplace then. Perhaps I got the beret for subsequent church services.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Perhaps I got the beret for subsequent church services.
In the mid 1930s the beadle refused to allow my mother to enter Brechin Cathedral because she was not wearing her beret. It was not even during the hours of divine service.
(The cathedral is - of course - C of S.)
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Just to add to the clothing discussion, my wife was confirmed in the 70’s and wore a white dress with veil etc.
Myself and our daughter – 8 at the time - were confirmed in the same church 5 years ago and my wife wanted to buy that sort of dress for my daughter, but the guidance we got from other women in the church was that she would look out of place and to get her a nice dress, which we did and which she wore at Christmas and to parties.
My son was confirmed two months ago – he is 10 - and he got a nice suit which he wore to his golf award presentation evening, Christmas services etc.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
The Vicar of Great Torrington used to present candidates similarly attired but, from what I can gather, his successor takes rather a, well, different approach liturgically.
Possibly a shame, although I suspect one would have been hard-pressed to find another priest *quite* like him...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Undoubtedly a shame. Have you looked at their website recently? I had never really felt the Sack of Rome til I did so.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm wondering what the average age of a person getting confirmed is nowadays - if most candidates are adults or at least teenagers now, I'd imagine that is why they don't wear things analogous to RC First Communion outfits. Certainly when I was confirmed, only one out of 20+ candidates was a child.
I went to a deanery confirmation with 47 candidates recently. Ages ranged from 10 ish to 60+, our two were 30s. Can't remember should well enough to guess at mean, mode or median.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Undoubtedly a shame. Have you looked at their website recently? I had never really felt the Sack of Rome til I did so.
Thurible
Ah. Nice to see more Baptisms and a pleasing pilgrimage to Walsingham (and Norwich!), but how will we learn about the intrinsic evils of the metric system now?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pia
Shipmate
# 17277
|
Posted
My daughter was confirmed this year. She was 10. The youngest to be confirmed in her group was 7. There were around 5 other children between about 10 and 13 and, I think, 4 adults.
On my own experience, I had thought 10 a bit young, and in fact she had asked to be baptised rather than confirmed, and it was suggested by a priest that she be baptised and confirmed together, which she was happy to do. On reflection, though, the fact that she was asking (of her own accord) to be baptised suggests that she knew what she was doing enough to be ready for confirmation anyway.
I was confirmed by the then Bishop of Truro when I was about 14, in the early eighties. I remember having to wear a white (or white-ish - I think mine was cream, and I think I had a veil ... not so much a veil as a white cotton headcovering). When my daughter was confirmed, it was pretty much anything goes clothing-wise, though the girls mostly wore pastel-ish party-ish dresses.
I have no recollection of what happened during the service when I was confirmed, but at my daughter's service there was definitely anointing. (This in an Anglican cathedral.)
Posts: 151 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009
|
Posted
circa 1980 I wore a cream dress made by my mum and what can only be described as a tea towel with strings provided by the parish church.
I was 14 at the time and would have balked at the idea of wearing a head covering if only it hadn't been sprung on us girls at the last preparation session. The boys/men of course had no specific clothing requirements. I did refuse to be photographed wearing the veil though.
Last autumn my 16 yr old daughter was confirmed in a purple dress (our symbolic protest at the recent General Synod vote) and a rather smart oatmeal coloured jacket. Obviously tradition had lost out to modernity, cos that dress came from a shop!
There was chrism oil for my daughter but memory fails as to what was imposed upon us back in 1980 other than the bishops hand.
btw daughter's service was joint CodE affair held at neighbouring Methodist church
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pia
Shipmate
# 17277
|
Posted
Ah, yes, SyNoddy... that's the jobby - a tea towel with strings!
(Liking the purple dress, too, btw!)
Posts: 151 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
I was confirmed in 1960, in an Anglo-Catholic parish in the TEC Diocese of Chicago.
Of which event I have four memories:
- It was the rather brief 1928 Confirmation service, followed by Benediction of the MBS
- We were anointed by the bishop, except for those being received from the RC or Ortho churches
- all the girls and women wore white dresses and veils (provided by the church)
- and we all got the 'buffett,' a slap on the cheek by the bp, said to symbolize enduring pain and hardship for the Faith. Is this done anywhere anymore?
What made the deepest impression, however, was that it was the first Saturday afternoon in May, and I had to miss the broadcast of the Kentucky Derby! ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009
|
Posted
30 odd years after the 'tea towel with strings' I can be honest enough to own a degree of veil envy when I remember the positively bridal affair of a RC friend!
When I read 'buffet' in the previous post I thought it was a reference to the slap up bun fight held after the confirmation ceremony. It certainly gives a new meaning to the laying on of hands ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
Buffets were still being administered by +Albert Chambers in Champiaign-Urbana in 1970; but no amount of pleading by Fr Arnold would persuade one young woman to put on the proferred veil ("badge of female submission").
I think the idea that the buffet signifies willingness to suffer etc is made-up stuff; isn't it just part of the normal homage ceremony of a vassal to his liege lord? (It comes after you kiss the bishop's ring as I remember, after confirmation has been administered by the laying-on of hands.)
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Many thanks to all who have contributed.My confirmation was so long ago I don't remember much but certainly the bishop placed his hand on the forehead and then anointed with chrism.I haven't heard the term 'buffet' but this was certainly an important part with a blow to the cheek (or so it was described) to remind the candidate that he or she had to stand up to the assaults of the devil and those against the faith.
The words 'sacrament' and 'ordinance' are words which are used by theologians to describe 'mysteries' so I certainly wouldn't argue about their use .
I find confirmation a difficult sacrament to explain and have to try to explain it to people who come mainly from a Presbyterian background,so perhaps you can understand why I wanted to understand it from a Presbyterian point of view.
We are told that the Apostles laid their hands on the baptised for them to receive the Holy Spirit and this is the origin of the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament,though the essential element since the earliest times has been the anointing or 'chrismation' which gives us the right to be called 'christian' or 'anointed'.
I've always thought that Anglicans and Presbyterians saw this ceremony principally as an affirmation of the faith of the candidate,rather than a confirmation of the grace of God through the imposition of the Holy Spirit but a number of posters have indicated otherwise.Similarly I didn't know that Anglican bishops confirmed with chrism,so many thanks for that information.
'Joining the church' is the phrase that I have heard Presbyterians talk about.In the general talk about baptism it is normal in Catholicism to recognise baptism as our 'joining the church' but I do like the words from JJ about 're ceiving full rights and responsibilities of a church member'
The catechism of the Catholic church says the following about Confirmation which may be of interest to all :
In the East (Byzantine rite) this sacrament is administered immediately after baptism and is followed by participation in the eucharist. This tradition highlights the unity of the three sacraments of Christian unity.In the Latin church the sacrament is administered whenb the age of reason is reached and its celebration is ordinarily reserved to the bishop thus signifying that it strengthens the ecclesial bond
A candidate for Confirmation who has reached the age of reason must profess the faith,be in a state of grace,have the intention of receiving the sacrament and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
'Joining the church' is the phrase that I have heard Presbyterians talk about.In the general talk about baptism it is normal in Catholicism to recognise baptism as our 'joining the church' but I do like the words from JJ about 're ceiving full rights and responsibilities of a church member'
Of course, in baptism one joins the Church as in the entire body of Christ throughout all time and space. When Presbyterians (and others in the Reformed traditions) talk of "joining the church" it almost always refers to the specific local congregation. Within some parts of Reformed traditions that would be a requirement to receive Communion with that particular congregation, it would certainly be a requirement to vote at the Church Meeting or to serve as an Elder or Deacon.
[ 11. January 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
(Tangent - I'm afraid to say I have known Anglicans who should know better saying "going into or leaving the church" when they mean entering or leaving the ordained ministry.
I find it infuriating.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
'Joining the church' is the phrase that I have heard Presbyterians talk about.In the general talk about baptism it is normal in Catholicism to recognise baptism as our 'joining the church' but I do like the words from JJ about 're ceiving full rights and responsibilities of a church member'
Of course, in baptism one joins the Church as in the entire body of Christ throughout all time and space. When Presbyterians (and others in the Reformed traditions) talk of "joining the church" it almost always refers to the specific local congregation. Within some parts of Reformed traditions that would be a requirement to receive Communion with that particular congregation, it would certainly be a requirement to vote at the Church Meeting or to serve as an Elder or Deacon.
Oh yes, oh very much yes. The United Church of Canada's Manual is explicit that Members (professed members on the Membership Roll) and only Members may vote at congregational meetings and serve in the Congregational Democracy, the Church Council or Session/Stewards. We have to have a quorum of lay members generally to make that work.
Much ink has been spilled in the Observer, our house rag over this question.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've never seen or heard of this buffetting business. I'm wondering if it's an exclusively North American tradition. Has anyone on this side of the Atlantic ever encountered it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I can't answer for Anglicans but certainly in the Catholic tradition the bishop would give the newly confirmed person a light tap on the cheek after the anointing to remind the person that he or she,having been strengthened or confirmed, was now a 'soldier of Christ' and that he or she had to be ready to resist the assaults of the Evil One
This long standing custom was replaced in the reformed rite for Confirmation after Vatican 2 with the greeting from the bishop 'Peace be with you' In practice here the bishop also shakes hands with the newly confirmed person (extends the right hand of fellowship, as the Presbyterians say).
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
It is still done in the Extraordinary Form.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
