This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 19 October 2014, At: 23:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

LiturgyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ultg20

What's New about the Past?Maxwell E. Johnson aa Theology Department , University of Notre Dame , Notre Dame,Indiana, USAPublished online: 07 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Maxwell E. Johnson (2000) What's New about the Past?, Liturgy, 16:1, 52-59, DOI:10.1080/0458063X.2000.10392494

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0458063X.2000.10392494

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

The Study of Christian Initiation

Maxwell E. Johnson

I have been asked to reflect on the current scholarly study of the historical development and theological interpretation of the Rites of Christian Initiation in response to two questions: (1) What new revolutionary interpretations of historical data have emerged in recent years? and (2) What bearing, if any, might these have on the revision of current liturgical orders for the churches today? Of these two questions, the first is much easier to answer than the second, for the simple reason that while the first asks for but a description of the insights of current liturgical scholarship, the second proposes the more difficult task of attempting to prescribe on this basis what liturgical orders might or should be today, a task well beyond my own competency and authority as one who works primarily in historical liturgical texts and their interpretation. Nevertheless, I shall proceed as follows.

In the first section of this article, a short summary of current scholarly views about the shape of Christian initiation in the early church, together with some of the documents upon which that shape or order has been based, will be provided. Second, since the related question of confirmation and first communion continue to be signifi- cant questions for the churches today, specific issues related to these liturgical acts will be considered next. Third, and finally, however reluctantly, I shall attempt some kind of preliminary answer to the second question noted above.

I. Modern liturgical scholarship on the rites of Christian initiation

The modern rites of Christian initiation appearing in the revised worship books of several Christian churches today, much like the shape of those rites in the late fourth and early fifth centuries throughout, display a remarkable degree of ecumenical-liturgical convergence and homogeneity. Such, of course, is not surprising when one considers that much of the same liturgical scholarship

9 53 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

which, in Roman Catholic circles, led to the publication of the current Roman Rites of Christian Initiation: 1969 (baptism of children), 1971 (confirmation), and 1972 (the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults), also informed the current rites of several other Western Christian traditions (e.g., the Lutheran Book of Worship, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of Common Worship), including various adapta- tions of the pre-baptismal adult Lenten catechumenal process.’ As such, there were certain common historical and influential assump- tions made, namely: (1) that there was a single, monolinear, and original unitive pattern of baptism, ”confirmation,” and first com- munion, celebrated from antiquity at the Easter Vigil (interpreted by a Romans 6 death and burial imagery) and prepared for by at least a nascent Lent, which, in the course of the Middle Ages, had been disrupted and separated into distinct sacraments and ultimately divorced from their “original” connection to Easter; (2) that an important document, like the Apostolic Tradition, ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 215), was actually composed by Hippolytus himself and thus reflected our earliest and authoritative piece of evidence for reconstructing early initiation practice at Rome; and (3) that any variations to this supposed normative pattern were to be viewed precisely as accidental and unimportant “variations” or idiosyncratic departures from this norm. All of this, however, has changed in recent lihirgical scholarship.

the early Syrian and Armenian liturgical traditions: and to Paul Bradshaw’s ground-breaking re-assessment of liturgical origins in general, in The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: modem liturgical scholars have come to emphasize that what was normative in early Christianity was liturgical diversity and multiple patterns from the very beginning; that there appears to have been no single common pattern, ritual contents, or theological interpretation which suggest themselves as universally normative, apart from some rather obvious things like catechesis, the water bath, and the profession of trinitarian faith. Hence, some of what has been viewed as universally normative was but the result of various changes toward uniformity brought about in the aftermath of Constantine’s imperial ascendancy and the various trinitarian and christological ecumenical councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. As such, while a three-fold pattern of baptism, “confirmation,” and first communion does appear to be a discernable North-African and Roman pattern for initiation, other patterns abound (e.g., anointing-baptism-first communion in Syria and, possibly, early Egypt), as do distinct theological interpretations of the overall meaning of these rites. A John 3:5 interpretation of baptism as new birth or adoption, with Jesus’ own baptism in the Jordan as paradigm, for example, seems to have been favored over the strangely silent theology of Romans 6 in several places, until a new synthesis was formed in the late fourth ~entury.~ Nevertheless, it is absolutely amazing to discover how infrequently Romans 6

Thanks, in large part, to the seminal work of Gabriele Winkler on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

appears in baptismal texts even in the West until its contemporary re- emphasis in our own day. A recent study of footwashing in the Gospel of John has even suggested that it is this rite, and not bap- tism at all, that may have constituted “initiation” within some of the early Johannine c~mmunities.~ Similarly, while there is some early preference in the West for Christian Initiation at Easter, certainly other occasions suggested themselves as well (e.g., Epiphany and Pentecost, the latter of which is already associated with baptism in Acts 2:38-42). Thanks to the work of Thomas Talley, the pre-Easter Lent itself seems to have been derived from a post-Epiphany forty- day period of fasting and baptismal preparation in the Egyptian tradition, that, in the aftermath of Nicea, becomes connected to Easter, which had itself then become the universally preferred occasion for baptism.6 And even the so-called authoritative docu- ments themselves, such as the Apostolic Tradition, have been subject to new scholarly critique, with an emerging view developing on the Apostolic Tradition itself that it is neither apostolic, Hippolytan, Roman, nor early third century, at least in the form it has come down to us. It may well still be a “tradition,” but a tradition that reflects and synthesizes diverse liturgical patterns and practice^.^ Current liturgical scholarship on the rites of Christian initiation, especially on early Christian rites, therefore, suggests considerable caution in drawing particular conclusions or implications from those rites.

II. Issues regarding confirmation and first communion With regard to the rite or sacrament of confirmation, another

common modem assumption has been that the postbaptismal chrismation and “seal of the Holy Spirit” in the Byzantine Rite is the equivalent (and, ultimately, better expression) of the traditional ”confirmation” handlaying prayer for the sevenfold gift of the Spirit and chrismation of the Roman tradition and, as such, was actually to be preferred in the modem composition of initiation rites. What Aidan Kavanagh has called the “Byzantinization” of confirmation in the Roman Rite, where “N. be sealed with the Holy Spirit” is now the formula,8 a formula paralleled, though not exactly, in the postbaptismal rites of several Protestant worship books today, has led to the almost universal deletion of the classic postbaptismal anointing prayer known since, at least, the time of Ambrose of Milan, where the imagery in the prayer of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 underscored that baptism is regeneration in water and the Holy Spirit. In addition, while looking to the East is praiseworthy, the pneumatic imagery and handlaying associated with the traditional Western confirmation prayer is not only made subservient in the Roman Rite to this Byzantine formula but the biblical gesture “handlaying” does not even occur and the anointing itself is intepreted as somehow “signifying” the laying on of hands, a medi- eval interpretation that is still obviously influential.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Concerning the origins of confirmation itself, contemporary scholarship has again raised some serious questions. In treating the bishop’s postbaptismal rites in the earliest extant version of the Apostolic Tradition (mid-fifth-century Latin, in which the gift of the Holy Spirit is not associated with these rites), Aidan Kavanagh has argued that these reflect only the traditional structure of what may be termed an episcopal missa, that is a ”dismissal” of various catego- ries of people from the liturgical assembly (e.g., catechumens and penitents) as was known to happen frequently in Christian antiquity. Various groups of people, before leaving the liturgical assembly, would go before the bishop and receive, often by a handlaying rite, his blessing. Consequently, just as these newly baptized had often been “dismissed” from both catechetical instruction and from liturgi- cal gatherings by a rite which included the laying on of hands, so now, after baptism and anointing, they are again dismissed by means of a similar ritual structure, but this time the ”dismissal” is from the baptismal bath to the eucharistic table. While later this dismissal rite would develop theologically into a postbaptismal conferral of the Holy Spirit and be ultimately separated from baptism itself, the origins of what will be this later “confirmation” rite are thus struc- tural rather than theol~gical.~

Paul Turner has questioned Kavanagh’s understanding of these episcopal acts as constituting an actual “dismissal” and, alternatively, suggests that these should be viewed as “the first public gesture of ratification for the bishop and the faithful who did not witness the pouring of water,” as it is quite clear that both baptism and the presbyteral anointing happened at a place outside of the assembly itself.l0 In other words, this unit of the bishop’s handlaying prayer and anointing constitutes a rite of “welcome” rather than dismissal, a rite by which those newly born of water and the Holy Spirit are now welcomed officially into the eucharistic communion of the church. And they are welcomed there by the chief pastor of the community, the bishop, who now prays for God’s grace to guide them in order that they might be faithful to what their baptism has already made them to be. In its origins, therefore, what became “confirmation” through various historical accidents and developments” was simply

the way that the baptismal rite itself was concluded and the eucharist begun in some commu- nities. To separate it from baptism brings with it a whole host of problems quite incongru- ent with its origins, and modern scholarship strongly underscores that.

Closely related to this is the fact that within Roman Catholic circles in the United States there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

is a new awareness developing that sacramental confirmation “is not a reaffirmation of a previous baptism; it is not the ritualization of a key moment in the human life cycle. It is, rather the gift of the Spirit tied intimately to the water-bath that prepares one for the reception of the body and blood of Christ as a full member of the church.”lZ For Roman Catholics, this new awareness has had two implications, either: (1) that confirmation and first communion simply be restored to baptism in all cases, whether the candidate is an infant, child, or adult; or (2) that, at the very least, the traditional ”canonical” age of 7 be the time at which those baptized in infancy are confirmed and receive first communion, in that order. If the first is clearly emerging as a general preferen~e,’~ the second is, in fact, emerging as the practice in several dioceses in the United States and Canada and will certainly become more frequent in the coming years. And, along these lines, it should be noted that within several contemporary Protestant traditions the communion participation of all the baptized, with first communion celebrated at the time of even infant baptism, has been, at least, theoretically re~tored.’~

III. Implications for current practice Although I am well aware of the fact that history itself is not

“normative” but certainly “instr~ctive,”’~ there are probably several implications for current initiatory practice that modem scholarship on liturgical history offers. In the previous section I already noted some of those implications for confirmation specifically: i.e., the restoration of confirmation, whatever its theological meaning may be, and first communion to baptism in all cases. To this may surely be added a plea that, at least in Roman Catholic circles, the practice of combining confirmation with the reception of already baptized Christians into full communion, whose own initiation rites already ritualize the baptismal gift and ”seal” of the Holy Spirit, simply cease. And the use of the Easter Vigil for either confirmation (Roman Rite) or the equivalent rites of Affirmation or Renewal of Baptism for the making of “converts” is another problem that needs to be ad- dressed.I6 In the words of Paul Turner:

The ecumenical movement longs for the day when the rites which prepare baptized Christians for full communion will be ripped from our books, and the catechumenate now so freely adapted for the baptized may become again the proper province of the unbaptized. . . . When the disciples warned Jesus that some who were not of their company were exorcising demons in his name they expected him to put a stop to it. Jesus tolerated strange exorcists with the simplest of aphorisms: ”If they‘re not against us, they‘re for us.” The church tolerates baptisms. Is it too much to ask that we tolerate confirmations as well? Our churches are irre- sponsibly dawdling toward a common table.I7

9 57 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

There are four other implications I will simply list here by way of conclusion to this essay. That is, the current scholarly study of the rites of Christian initiation would seem to imply:

1. That greater attention be given to the diversity of baptismal imagery and theology in the New Testament and the wider Christian liturgical tradition. A Romans 6 understanding of baptism as death, burial, and resurrection in Christ, as important as it is, can and should be complimented by attention to the equally dominant rebirth and adoption imagery in the Holy Spirit of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5. If such images are not contradictory, renewed attention may well underscore not only different theologies but different baptismal spiritualities as well;

the Holy Spirit, the classic Western postbaptismal anointing prayer be restored in any future revisions of baptismal rites and that the confirmation “handlaying” and “sealing” in the Roman Rite be revisited;

3. That greater attention and focus be given to other feasts and seasons of the liturgical year, along with Easter, as most suitable occasions to celebrate the rites of Christian initiation in their fullness. Here, as suggested already in some contemporary traditions, the feasts of Pentecost, the Epiphany (i.e., the Sunday after the Epiphany that celebrates the baptism of Jesus by John), and even All Saints as a feast of ecclesial identity in Christ into which one is initiated might well become important baptismal occasions and assist in the recovery of a richer baptismal consciousness. The adaptation of an Advent to Epiphany catechumenate, for example, might also be considered; and

4. That if nothing else, a greater ecumenical appreciation of liturgical diversity rather than homogeneity and uniformity be recovered and encouraged. I suspect that were contemporary liturgi- cal reformers to pay closer attention to a broader vision of liturgical history and development, our current rites might be more individu- ally diverse and distinct from each other than they actually are. That is, together with ecumenical convergence, our worship books might more closely approximate the existence of various and identifiable rites within the church. If the diverse ritual patterns of Christian antiquity teach us anything it may be that Christian unity is not to be located in uniformity, even liturgical uniformity, but that unity itself respects and cherishes diversity of liturgical expression, celebration, and distinct ecclesial ways of being Christian. Such, of course, is another way of saying that local liturgical inculturation is always of paramount importance in the life of the church and that contempo- rary liturgical celebration, while both consistent and in conformity with tradition, need not be a slavish imitation of the precise patterns of particular so-called authoritative documents in that tradition.

No, history itself is not normative, but the historical study of Christian initiation may still be quite instructive and still have important lessons to teach us.

2. That, in service to the integral connection between baptism and

4 58 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10

11.

Cf. Welcome to Christ: Lutheran Ritesfor the Cutechurnenate (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997); and Book of Occasional Services (New York Church Hymnal Corp.,

See G. Winkler, ”Das armenische Initiationsrituale”, Orientalia Christina Analecta 217 (Rome 1982); and idem., ”The Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing and Its Implications,’’ Worship 52 (1978): 24-45 (= M. Johnson (ed.), Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian hitintion (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1995), pp. 58-81. P. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (New York/London: Oxford University Press, 1992). See Kilian McDonnell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan: The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1996). Cf. M. Connell, “‘Nisi Pedes’ Except for the Feet: Footwashing in the Community of John’s Gospel,” Worship 70, 4 (1996), pp. 20-30. See T. Talley, The Origins ofthe Liturgical Year, 2nd emended ed. (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1986); and P. Bradshaw, “‘Diem baptism0 sollemniorem’: Initiation and Easter in Christian Antiquity,” in Maxwell Johnson (ed.), Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian hitiation (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1995), pp. 137-147. See W. Kinzig, C. Markschies, and M. Vinzent, Taufragen und Bekenntnis: Studien zur sogennanten ‘Traditio Apostolica‘ zu den ‘Interrogationes defide‘ und zum ‘Romischen Glaubensbekenntnis’, (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999); M. Metzger, “Nouvelles perspectives pour la pretendue Tradition Apostolique,” Ecclesia Orans 5 (1988), pp. 241-259; idem., “EnquCtes autour de la pretendue Tradition Apostolique,” Ecclesia Orans 9 (1992), pp. 7-36; idem., “A propos des reglements ecclesiastiques et de la pretendue Tradition Apostolique,” Revue des sciences religieuses 66 (1992), pp. 249-261; and P. Bradshaw, ”Re-dating the Apostolic Tradition: Some Preliminary Steps,” in J. Baldovin and N. Mitchell (eds.), Rule of Prayer, Rule offaith: Essays in Honor of Aidm Kuvanagh, OSB (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1996), pp. 3-17. Together with Paul Bradshaw and L. Edward Phillips I am working on a new edition of and commentary on this Apostolic Tradition for the Hermeneia Commentary Series, forthcoming from Fortress Press. See A. Kavanagh, Confirmution: Origins and Reform (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1988), pp. 92ff. See ibid., pp. 39ff. P. Turner, “The Origins of Confirmation: An Analysis of Aidan Kavanagh’s Hypothesis,” in M. Johnson (ed.), Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1995), p. 255. On these developments, see M. Johnson, The Rites ofChristian Initiation: Their Evolution and Znterpretation (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1999), pp. 201-213.

1979), pp. 115-130.

12. G. Austin, Anointing with the Spirit (Collegeville: Pueblo, 1985 ), p. 155. 13. See the Federation ofDiocesun Liturgical Commissions Newsletter 22,4 (December

1995), p. 45. 14. Cf. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Use ofthe Means of Grace: A Statement

on the Practice of Word and Sacrament (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997). 15. See R. Taft, The Liturgy ofthe Hours in East and West (Collegeville: The Liturgical

Press, 1986), p. xv. 16. See M. Johnson, “Let’s Stop Making ‘Converts’ at Easter,” Catechumenate 21,5

(September 1999), pp. 10-20. 17. Paul Turner, Confirmation: The Baby in Solomon’s Court (Mahwah, New Jersey:

Paulist Press, 1993), p. 129.

Mamell E. lohnson, Associate Professor of Liturgical Studies, Theology Department, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, lndiana

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:58

19

Oct

ober

201

4