I. Introduction The Sacrament of Confirmation is often the “forgotten” sacrament. Everyone knows of its existence yet they do not know what purpose it serves. In this article, I will discuss the history and development of Confirmation throughout the Church's life. I will begin with Sacred Scripture and move on through and up to the present day. The divergences in the practice of administering these Sacraments between the East and West will also be discussed. My purpose is to give a broad history of the Sacrament since an in-depth one would require more space. I also intend to show that while our understanding of Confirmation has developed the mission that it calls us to has not.
If I may add, Baptism from the very beginning was much more than a Christian form of circumcism. It was that (the consacration of a baby to God) and much more as explained by Joseph.
I must disagree with Nancy tho. It is Scriptural to baptize babies. I have spent many years studying Judaism and Jewish culture. The Biblical term "the whole household" means every person of all ages including babies as well as including servants and even slaves. If the Bible had meant except babies it would have said so, since the term very specifically meant everyone, the Biblical 'all'. It is also clear from the writings from the Church Fathers starting from the late 1st Century and very early 2nd Century that the Church from the beginning baptized babies, as they presented baptism as the Christian version of circumcism.
I write to make note that the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist which were taken together in the early years of the church proving these sacraments were dispensed to adults only. Infants had no part in these sacramental rites because they could NOT be witnesses to the faith. To accept confirmation, one must be of such an age as to be able to defend the Holy Church which is why the common age for being confirmed at age 12, similar to the Jewish faith when a boy of that age makes his Bar Mitzvah. I find it anti-scriptural to call an infant’s sprinkling anything but a christening. It is not a baptism which must be made individually by a person once they are of age to understand the responsibility. We do a disservice to not fully and completely baptize an adult any other way than by complete submerging in a body of water. The very word Baptizo means to immerse. The word rantizo means to sprinkle and Cheo means to pour. Yet, remember the word used to explain the sacrament is SPECIFICALLY BAPTIZO. No other words.
Frankly I realize accommodations were made across the centuries but shouldn’t we chose the way our lord began his ministry in the River Jordan with John? When we alter traditions and invent words to take the place of the only words, we invite confusion and lose the sense of capitulation and duty that goes with the very humbling act itself.
Make of this what you will. It is merely my opinion.
Great article! I particularly liked the discussion of St Cyril and the excerpt from his mystagogical lectures.
If I may add, Baptism from the very beginning was much more than a Christian form of circumcism. It was that (the consacration of a baby to God) and much more as explained by Joseph.
Thank you very enlightening and informative.
I must disagree with Nancy tho. It is Scriptural to baptize babies. I have spent many years studying Judaism and Jewish culture. The Biblical term "the whole household" means every person of all ages including babies as well as including servants and even slaves. If the Bible had meant except babies it would have said so, since the term very specifically meant everyone, the Biblical 'all'. It is also clear from the writings from the Church Fathers starting from the late 1st Century and very early 2nd Century that the Church from the beginning baptized babies, as they presented baptism as the Christian version of circumcism.
I write to make note that the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist which were taken together in the early years of the church proving these sacraments were dispensed to adults only. Infants had no part in these sacramental rites because they could NOT be witnesses to the faith. To accept confirmation, one must be of such an age as to be able to defend the Holy Church which is why the common age for being confirmed at age 12, similar to the Jewish faith when a boy of that age makes his Bar Mitzvah. I find it anti-scriptural to call an infant’s sprinkling anything but a christening. It is not a baptism which must be made individually by a person once they are of age to understand the responsibility. We do a disservice to not fully and completely baptize an adult any other way than by complete submerging in a body of water. The very word Baptizo means to immerse. The word rantizo means to sprinkle and Cheo means to pour. Yet, remember the word used to explain the sacrament is SPECIFICALLY BAPTIZO. No other words.
Frankly I realize accommodations were made across the centuries but shouldn’t we chose the way our lord began his ministry in the River Jordan with John? When we alter traditions and invent words to take the place of the only words, we invite confusion and lose the sense of capitulation and duty that goes with the very humbling act itself.
Make of this what you will. It is merely my opinion.
Nancy Sullivan
Sully4648@ Comcast.net