A small working group has been examining baptism and confirmation in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. They are reporting with recommendations to General Synod Te Hinota Whanui (GSTHW) which is meeting in May 2016. School Chaplains have received this report and recommendations but, I have checked with the Provincial Secretary, we are not allowed to share the content of this report.
I have long pressed for reports and motions to GSTHW to be digitally public prior to the meeting of GSTHW, and our pressure for that means that this year, for the first time, that will be the case. So as soon as that material becomes available I will point to it here and provide space to discuss it.
What is public already is that there has been a formal shift in Tikanga Pasifika (the Polynesian stream of our church). Although the formal position of our church since 1990 has been that baptism is the sole requirement for reception of communion, in practice confirmation was the doorway to receiving communion in Polynesia. In 2015, however, the Synod of the Diocese of Polynesia resolved that
baptism is complete in itself, that is, one is made a member of Christ’s church and the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon that person at baptism. The baptised can therefore partake of Holy Communion because he or she has now been admitted into the body of Christ, the church.
[That there are still places in Tikanga Pakeha (the “European” stream of our Church) that have “Admission to Communion”, or people, including bishops, who teach that in confirmation one receives the Holy Spirit, is another discussion – I do not think these can be understood as the teachings of our Church.]
Some years back I was interested in discussing per saltum ordination (being ordained directly to the order to which you are called – ie. directly, for example, to priesthood, rather than being a deacon first – see here and here). Discussions at that time underlined that, in our Russian-Doll approach to ordination (inside every bishop there is a priest, inside whom is a deacon, then a confirmed person, then a baptised person), confirmation is a requirement for ordination. This is currently a canonical requirement of our church.
I was told in no uncertain terms that Tikanga Polynesia had a traditional practice of confirmation and I had no hope of budging that. Now that baptism is universally taught in our Church as full church membership, might that open the discussion whether confirmation is needed for ordination?
But
I am wondering whether other Anglican provinces require confirmation for ordination (let us know in the comments, please)?
Have other Anglican provinces had this discussion?
Do other episcopal denominations (Roman Catholics, Old Catholics) require confirmation for ordination?
Have they had this discussion?
If other Anglican provinces (and other episcopal denominations) require confirmation for ordination, would removing that requirement in our province upset acceptance (discussions) about the validity of ordinations here?
I am looking forward to comments and information.
[Update: Some of the discussion is happening on the facebook post that goes with this blog post – click here to see the other points once you’ve checked the discussion below
On another thread picking up this discussion, a priest underlines being ordained without confirmation.]
If you appreciated this post, do remember to like the liturgy facebook page, use the RSS feed, and signing up for a not-very-often email, …
Yes, Roman Catholics require confirmation for ordination:
Canon 1033: Only one who has received the sacrament of sacred confirmation may lawfully be
promoted to orders.
Thanks for pointing to that canon, Eleanor. That’s very helpful. It is interesting language:
It talks about “licitly” – so the question remains, is the validity of ordination affected if the person is not confirmed?
Blessings.
Is this a real debate or more of the dumbing down that appears to be gong on. Yes I agree baptism is full admission to the life of the church but wasn’t confirmation a part of that originally – it was only separated because of infant mortality rates etc etc. the other thing I have noticed from years of observation is that many Anglicans are baptised as infants with no actual memory of the event. Confirmation or taking on ones own promises is significant when people take on their own faith instead of the faith of their parents. Removing this rite could leave us them more vulnerable to the teachings of Pentecostal churches… which don’t seem to recognise the life long faith journey. Just some thoughts over breakfast
Thanks, Heather. The history of confirmation, to quote facebook, is complicated. This will be as real a debate as General Synod and others make it. In your perspective, in our post-Christian world where infant baptism is dropping, what is the place of confirmation when a person has been baptised as an adult? Blessings.
The Episcopal Church USA continues to require evidence of Confirmation for ordination (e.g. Canon III.8.2 reads in part, “A confirmed adult communicant in good standing may be
nominated for ordination to the Priesthood”).
Baptism is the only requirement for admission to Communion.
We have been having the per saltum conversation for some time.
Thanks so much, Chip.
Here is the document for people who want to follow this up.
The question remains: if NZ Anglicanism were to no longer require confirmation for ordination, would an unconfirmed NZ priest be accepted to preside at the Eucharist in TEC?
Is there a conversation about TEC’s requirement of confirmation for ordination? If so – where can we follow it?
& where can we see more about TEC’s per saltum conversation?
Blessings.
Hi Bosco, as you know I have far too much skin in this game to pretend to be just an interested passerby. Some questions though to aid people’s musing maybe:
Which confirmation are we talking about? There are a multitude of understandings floating around about what confirmation is, most (including the ‘taking as ones own the vows of baptism’ understanding) completely out of step with historical practice and belief. Then there are the huge differences between denominations.
If this is about faith declaration, is a one-off never to be repeated special dress up occasion really the most helpful option?
Who do we really think is the effective agent in baptism? If it’s God then it really doesn’t matter what we remember does it.
As for ordination – anything that is done purely because that’s the hoop we have to jump through, rather than out if a deep sense of purpose and faith, must surely be looked at with great suspicion.
Blessings, Brian
As you know, Brian, we are on the same page about all these points and questions.
“Must surely” doesn’t seem to necessarily get a lot of traction in our church 🙁
Blessings
Confirmation was always associated with the attainment of a certain level of knowledge (catechism). There havebeen three areas of contention: 1.Does confirmation require a bishop or merely an incumbent? 2. Is it legitimate to make a deacon who lacks basic Christian knowledge ? 3. Are the mentally impaired to be denied admission to communion ?
I only think your “always” goes back to the Reformation, Ivan. Blessings.
As a candidate for ordination in the United Methodist tradition coming from a conservative Baptist tradition, I’ve never been confirmed, yet I’ve taught confirmation. If I remember correctly, United Methodists (and likely more broadly Pan-Methodist traditions sharing heritage from the Methodist Episcopal Church) did not have confirmation for a long time, reintroducing it was an ecumenical move, likely from our engagement with what is today the ELCA (my local church actually uses a partly Methodist curriculum published by Augsburg-Fortress, the ELCA press). It is a rite, and sacramental but of course, isn’t considered a sacrament in Methodist traditions. Our bishops have confirmation retreat events, but it is presbyters (elders) that confirm in The UMC.
I just found out about something that may be helpful:
http://theconfirmationproject.com/ – would it be enough to be confirmed in a church you’re denomination is in full communion with? A shared curriculum and similar rite?
Now, with all that said, does The UMC and other Mainline Protestant traditions in the US need to consider better catechesis, mystagogy, and the like for people seeking to be members, even requiring confirmation for potential new members and those who’ve never had it (including me!)– yes. I think we’ve made membership far too easy, making members, not disciples.
To your point of orders, Pan-Methodists are a special witness in claiming that every bishop is a presbyter– carrying apostolic tradition through our communion, and apostolic succession through the presbyterate. Very much a minority stream in episcopal-ordered denominations today, but this was hotly debated in John Wesley’s time and before (by Luther and John King, if I recall).
As an enthusiastic lay person serving in my local church on PCC, Mission Secretary etc. it was a requirement to have been confirmed. I declined and after some discussion the Bishop visited and formally welcomed me into the Anglican Church with a handshake and a very short homily.
Thanks, Peter. I’m not sure that a lot of readers of your comment will make sufficient sense of it unless you provide a bit more background and context. Blessings.
Hello Bosco. I thought others might find the following article, co-incidentially posted yesterday, as an insighful contribution. God bless, Henry
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/confirmation-and-evangelization/5080/
Thanks very much, Henry. Very pertinent. Blessings.
To clarify my earlier post l was baptised as an adult in a Baptist Church. I am a committed Christian. For the last twenty years I have been a regular communicant at local Anglican churches and the fact that I have not been confirmed did not bother my various rectors. Then I agreed to stand as a warden and was told I must be confirmed. I saw no biblical justification for this and could not agree to be confirmed merely because it was church policy. At that time there were others in the church in a similar situation including someone who was Roman Catholic. The bishop decided to come to our church and ‘welcome’ us. He prayed for us individually and shook our hands. It was good to have the issue resolved with wisdom and grace.
Thanks, Peter, for the expanded explanation. You didn’t specify which (country) Anglican Church this occurred in, and whether this is a canonical requirement (that the bishop then ignored) or was an eccentricity (at a “lower level” of “church policy”) that the bishop dealt with pastorally. Blessings.
In the Roman Catholic tradition Confirmation is not only required for Ordination, but is required for Religious Profession with in a religious order and is also required for the other sacrament of commitment being Matrimony.
Canon 1065.1 Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before being admitted to marriage, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.
So at least one party to a marriage witnessed in a Catholic church needs to be confirmed.
Perhaps if we were to move away from infant baptism, to baptism being at the age of 8 of older (hopefully full immersion) with the laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, there would be no longer any need to confirm baptism.
Thanks, Phillip. I read Canon 1065.1 differently to you. I do not conclude from that, as you do, that it is “required” for Matrimony, nor that “at least one party to a marriage witnessed in a Catholic church needs to be confirmed”. The Canon you provide leaves open the possibility of marriage without confirmation when there is “grave inconvenience”. So the validity of the Sacrament of Matrimony is clearly, in RC theology, not requiring confirmation. The question, hence, still remains: in RC theology is the validity of ordination dependent on the person being ordained already having been confirmed? Blessings.
Kia Ora Bosco,
There have been informal conversations happening in Tikanga Maori since we caught wind of the korero from the working group and without saying too much, like Tikanga Polynesia, Tikanga Maori is fairly staunchly committed to Confirmation as it stands now. It seems the motion has been lost even before it has been put.
Kia Ora, Christopher. Thanks for that information. To clarify for overseas readers: in our church, not only do we need the agreement of the three Houses (bishops, clergy, laity), but we also need the agreement of the three Tikanga (cultural streams): Maori, Polynesia, Pakeha. Hence Christopher’s conclusion. Arohanui!
So what is “confirmation as it stands now”? I note the comment abou “confirming baptism” – this hasn’t been officially part of any church’s doctrine of confirmation since the Middle Ages.
Confirmation is also required for licensed lay ministry (at least in the canons of the Wellington Diocese, refer DC 12, sec 12).
Thanks, David. So is confirmation a requirement for being on synod? On vestry? As an aside – I went to the Christchurch diocesan website to see if that is the case here – good luck finding out digitally; and the same for the Wellington site where the church is still in Christmas last year. The aside being – as a church, we do not do online mission and ministry well. Blessings.
I think confirmation should be required, at least for life-long members of the Church. A person chooses to be confirmed. You’re not confirmed as a baby when you’re unable to object, you’re confirmed upon reaching the age of reason, when you can decide whether you want to be confirmed. It’s your choice to take the extra step. One of the ways I thought of confirmation was as a question: “Do you want to be a member of the Church?”. I would find it very strange for somebody to answer “no” to that question, yet ask to be ordained anyways.
I am a Roman Catholic, and according to Canon 1033, Only one who has received the sacrament of sacred confirmation may lawfully be
promoted to orders.
Thanks, Michael. There is a lot to unpack here.
As one familiar with the canons of your church, I imagine you are, hence, familiar with the different rites within your church. Eastern Rite Catholics, of course, chrismate at baptism, and that is understood as the equivalent to your Latin Rite confirmation (which may happen at quite an early age). Hence, your statement “you’re not confirmed as a baby” is incorrect.
Furthermore, I have a recollection (that I would need to check), that a Latin Rite RC baby near death might also be confirmed (RCs, you will know, don’t need a bishop to confirm). Should that baby live, s/he has been “unable to object”.
I think your suggestion that a person who is not confirmed ceases to be a member of the church upon reaching the age of reason unless ordained (that seems the logical conclusion from your point) would be a very novel idea.
The canon you quote has already been dealt with in the comments – the question is: would the absence of confirmation affect validity?
Thanks again for your thoughts. Blessings.
Confirmation, perhaps, should be recast completely as “Reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant”.
Such a reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant would be fitting as a coming of age process (as Confirmation is oft-currently used), and as a mode of reception into full fellowship with a Church body.
This could also be used with those who have fallen away from Church attendance, or even professed faith for a period of time, so that – in addition to any private reconciliation deemed necessary/appropriate or individual desired on the part of the individual, they may be surrounded with the prayer of the Christian community in recommitting to their covenantal relationship with God.
I believe that the TEC liturgy already does some of this by construction, though I am not certain if it is under multiple banners or a single banner with multiple modes.
Rob+
Thanks, Fr Rob. As indicated, I may not let slip what is in the report 😉 I would take care with your second paragraph – I hold baptism as enabling full fellowship within the church. The NZ Anglican baptismal rite has several peculiarities – one being that no one makes promises on behalf of the child – hence there are no promises, no covenant, to renew. Blessings.
Bosco+,
In that second paragraph, I intended to equate such an affirmation as a means of entering into visible fellowship with a particular ecclesial body within the wider church.
I have a copy of APBNZ at work… Will have to check out your baptismal rite for infants tomorrow.
You may be interested, Fr Rob, if you have an earlier NZPB where the sole order was “pour water on them & then see if they believe anything”, that I got a more sensible order through our General Synod. It is found here. Blessings.
I grew up and was baptized as an “adult” in an Evangelical church. I was later confirmed in the Episcopal Church rather than being “received” because I had never been confirmed. At least in my diocese, it seems you need to be confirmed/received in order to “officially” become a member of parish whereas Baptism grants you access to the Sacraments (though my diocese practices totally open communion as well).
Does NZ require formalized theological training in the same way TEC does? How would someone reach ordination without being confirmed already?
Thanks, M Taylor. We don’t really have official membership in the manner of TEC, nor (surprisingly) do we have any agreed formalized theological training required for ordination in the manner that TEC has 🙁 Blessings.
It’s worth noting that while the Wellington (Anglican) canons May still require confirmation for a lay ministry license the clause has not been policed for many years (whether the person is confirmed is not even asked on the forms). That particular canon is interesting (if you’re into that kind of thing) because lay licensing has been totally overhauled in Wellington without any canonical revisions that I’m aware of.
It’s great to read the RC responses here. Their church has done a huge amount of work on confirmation and come to a fairly clear understanding of its meaning and purpose (when it should happen remains an ongoing debate). Some may be surprised when I say very clearly that Anglican confirmation holds very little relationship with RC confirmation and even less with Presbyterian or Methodist confirmation (which is all about membership, albeit a rather defunct rite).
All very important points, Brian, that I hope readers here are taking in and might explore further. Blessings.
I was baptized, later confirmed, and then ordained in a mainline Protestant denomination. When I decided to seek Holy Orders in the Episcopal Church, I was re-confirmed because my previous denomination was not in the historic succession and confirmation was not by a bishop. Although the canons and the various paperwork for ordination seemed clear, in practice there was much disagreement as to whether I would have only needed to be received rather than confirmed.
Thanks, Gloria. Confirmation in the RC Church can be administered by a priest (rather than a bishop). I wonder what happens if a so-confirmed RC person offered for ordination in TEC what would happen? Also, I presume that a priest from the RC church who had been so confirmed would be able to serve as a priest in TEC without confirmation by a bishop. Blessings.
To set the stage, I’m a non-cradle confirmed lay member of The Episcopal Church [a multinational province of the Anglican Communion with historic roots in 13 of the original British colonies of North America] living in the States. In The EC, officially-speaking, you only need to be baptised to take Communion (but I’ve never seen anyone check anyone’s baptismal certificate at the altar rail), but you need to be confirmed (and pledging) in order to even vote an the annual parish meeting, little lone serve on the Vestry (parish council) or most any lay leadership role at the parish level or above. For those already confirmed in churches within the historic Apostolic tradition (like Rome, Constantinople, the Methodists, the Lutherans, et cetera . . . ) apart from the Anglican Communion, the Bishop “receives” them into the AC. [Note: Because The EC is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, I’m not sure if confirmed members of the ELCA need to be received by the Bishop or just transfer their letter of membership from their old ELCA congregation to their new EC parish.]
I grew up among baptists because that is what the neighbours were. In high school I transitioned to a non-denominational congregation that my mum was then attending where I was baptised as a teen. Upon adulthood I soon found my way to an Episcopalian parish here in the US and fell in love with the BCP 1979. I proceeded to read not only the 1979, but also the 1928, cover to cover. And it was in that first parish that I was confirmed upon my request. (In reading the two BCPs cover to cover, I had come across the Confirmation liturgy & rubrics.)
To me baptism is the entry into the one Church, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic and how we become full members of that Church and how that Church says, to quote the BCP 1979, “We receive you into the household of God.” And then calls us to “Confess the faith of Christ crucified, proclaim His resurrection, and share with us in His eternal priesthood.”
To paraphrase something I remember a bishop one say (and can’t remember if I read it or heard it) Baptism is like our first ordination. So yeah, I’m not a fan of the idea of “Per Saltum” ordination. As a lay person, I can’t speak for others, but personally, I wouldn’t want a deacon/priest/bishop/primate who had not been baptised, confirmed, *and* ordained in the proper order. Yes, there are those in church history who have risen very quickly in the ranks (even quicker than the current Archbishop of Canterbury) like those who were elected bishop *then* ordained to all three orders on the same day, but they still didn’t get to skip any steps. And Confirmation to me is an important step.
Confirmation is the step in which we join the Anglican Communion. Why would someone want to be ordained in a stream of the Church that they were not willing to join? Confirmation, like Baptism, is an outward sign of an inward and spiritual grace. For those baptised at a young age, it is taking on the commitment to follow God in Christ as He is known in the Anglican tradition as well as taking on the rights and responsibilities of being a full member of the Anglican Communion.
Confirmation should not be entered into lightly anymore than ordination to the diaconate (with or without the idea of eventually being priested) or entering into the sacrament of holy matrimony should be. (Actually marriage often should be taken way more seriously by the consenting adult couples that enter into it.)
Like marriage and ordination there _should be_ serious and adequate preparation before Confirmation. I suspect that the level of preparation varies by parish across the Communion. In the early decades of the Church people had three years of instruction before being baptised. I’m not saying bring that back, but Confirmation class should be more than three or four weeks long. My opinion is these classes need to cover not just the liturgy used in Confirmation, but, especially in the case of adults not raised in the liturgical stream of the Church (or not even raised in any part of the Church at all), also the basics of Church history, why we do what we do in liturgy (especially the Eucharistic liturgy), how to use the BCP beyond Sunday morning (look, in the 1979, there’s the Daily Office, lectionary readings for every day of the year, how to find the date of Easter for the next 70+ years, the Psalter, prayers for various occasions, and the Quicunque Vult, and all in one book!)
I think the Confirmation curriculum used for the three of us who studied for Confirmation together all those years ago was pretty good and comprehensive, though I’d have liked a little more meat around the “why we do what we do liturgically especially around the Eucharistic liturgy” part. Overall though the one thing that stuck with me was the exercise in writing our own collect. I read through all the collects I could find in the BCP, found a subject not covered, and wrote an appropriately formatted collect. And that just deepened my liturgical-nerdery.
I could say more but this comment is turning into a long form essay . . .
Peace be with all y’all.
Thanks, “Miss”. On this site we just use our ordinary name, please. You provide your twitter profile, Jan Anderson, so just use that name next time please.
I do not agree that “Baptism is like our first ordination”. This appears a clericalist position where bishop is what we all should aspire to (having collected the full set of possible ordinations). Baptism makes us full members of the church in which we are all called to different roles. These include: lay, deacon, priest, and bishop.
I see little support for the novel idea that “Confirmation is the step in which we join the Anglican Communion”. Certainly, I see no suggestion of this in any of the confirmation rites that I know of.
Thanks for your comment – write as long as you like.
Blessings.
And since you are interested in what Canons say . . . here is a link to the main web page for the Constitution and Canons of the The Episcopal Church . . . http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/constitution-canons-and-other-publications . . . 2012 is the most recent full document available. Not sure when 2015 will be posted (it has only been seven and a half months since the last General Convention . . . sigh).
Please just use your ordinary name, rather than “Miss” – thanks. Blessings.
Thanks Bosco for your latest round of posts. They’ve been especially interesting and I’ve enjoyed them all. I have to say I’ve always been pro-confirmation. The Church provides somebody who’s reached the age of reason a formal and rather lovely setting in which to affirm their faith in front of the community and in the presence of the bishop. It’s not dissimilar to Christian marriage in that respect. It also provides a valuable period of reflection and instruction, and helps us to approach Holy Communion appropriately with better understanding of what we are doing. I think it’s fairly obvious why there is now so much confusion over this issue: Anglican churches (certainly in this province and in the C of E) have for many years welcomed to Holy Communion all baptised Trinitarian Christians, regardless of which denomination they belong to. If our church is going to permit full participation of all comers in this way, doesn’t it make confirmation look rather pointless?
You seem to me, Chris, to have articulated the question that set all this in motion. Blessings.
I did wonder, Bosco. I’m no expert, and have no qualifications in theology or canon law or anything, but I know what feels right to me after a lifetime’s exposure to pre- and post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, High-Church and Middle-of-the-Road Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy. We used to talk a lot about ‘formation of a good conscience’; confirmation was part of this process. I remember my own confirmation by the Bishop of Kingston, the Rt Rev Hugh Montefiore (remember him?), in the 1970s with great fondness as one of those defining moments, and was deeply touched when my own sister sought confirmation in the C of E in her late 30s after a lifetime’s agnosticism prior to that. Confirmation is a powerful personal statement of commitment for those who seek it. I feel it would be a shame if this were all to disappear in a nebulous fog of ecumenism (not that I’m an anti-ecumenist, don’t get me wrong). Doesn’t this also go back at least in part to our discussion of what, if anything, it means to be an Anglican a few weeks ago (‘Anglican Homonym’)?
Thanks, Chris. Yes, I think yours is the sort of story that needs to be heard. Formation in Christian maturity is very important to me – I think that is what you are talking about: how do we help people grow? Confirmation and its preparation was an important way to do this. If those days are changing, we need to find new ways to do what that did then. Blessings.
I did wonder, Bosco. I’m no expert, and have no qualifications in theology or canon law or anything, but I know what feels right to me after a lifetime’s exposure to pre- and post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, High-Church and Middle-of-the-Road Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy. We used to talk a lot about ‘formation of a good conscience’; confirmation was part of this process. I remember my own confirmation by the Bishop of Kingston, the Rt Rev Hugh Montefiore (remember him?), in the 1970s with great fondness as one of those defining moments, and was deeply touched when my own sister sought confirmation in the C of E in her late 30s after a lifetime’s agnosticism prior to that. Confirmation is a powerful personal statement of commitment for those who seek it. I feel it would be a shame if this were all to disappear in a nebulous fog of ecumenism (not that I’m an anti-ecumenist, don’t get me wrong). Doesn’t this also go back at least in part to our discussion a few weeks ago of what, if anything, it means to be an Anglican (‘Anglican Homonym’)?
Yes, that’s exactly right Bosco. You’ve expressed it perfectly. Thank you. Just for the record, I spent time in Vanuatu a few years ago. I asked one of the leading members of the congregation at Seaside, Port Vila about this very matter, and he told me that confirmation is still considered a normal and necessary part of Christian formation in the Church of Melanesia. Mind you, ACOM is in many ways a different animal to the Anglican Church of Or, so maybe we’re back yet again to the Anglican Homonym!
It comes as no surprise that confirmation is still seen as meaningful and important in places and provinces where it is still the gateway to holy communion. In the NZ church this has not been the case in practice in many places for 40 years (or more). What has been clear in the years since is that confirmation has floundered for lack of meaning, and while some have taken it and given it new meanings and purposes (such as being all about personal faith declaration) these have almost always been completely separated from the historical meanings of the rite, which for Anglicans have always been confused and contradictory.
Of course this is complicated further by the lack of transparency in the discussion process about proposed changes. As one of the architects I would simply say no one is suggesting dumping confirmation and that’s it. Rather there has been an attempt to acknowledge what is actually being done and asked for in OUR province and provide more appropriate answers. Bosco’s questions about the potential impact on the recognition of orders in other provinces is an interesting one, and I haven’t a seen an answer yet.
Thanks, Brian. The discussion is stymied by our Church’s General Secretary’s ruling that the document is confidential – while certain groups (such as school chaplains & RE teachers) are discussing the actual content. As I said, as soon as the document is public it will appear here with more specific points from me – and the opportunity for comments from others. Like you, I am fascinated that not a single comment deals with the sacramental question of the effect on validity of orders, if any. Blessings.
Bosco
It is ecumenically complicated here in England, if you are a Lutheran getting ordained in the CoE. If you are from a Porvoo Church, your confirmation is accepted, even if it was done by a pastor. If you are from German churches, you would have to be confirmed.
If your Synod has abolished confirmation (did they?) then would we have to ‘properly’ confirm candidates before they could be ordained?
Daft isn’t it.
Thanks, Phillip. My understanding is that the confirmation discussion has been left on the table. Blessings.
The best response that I’ve heard to this debate is (to paraphrase Robert Farrar Capon), “why have a three course meal, with a glass of wine, when bread and water will do the job?” Confirmation is not a “requirement” but still an important part of the fullness of participation in the Body of Christ.
The conversation should be about “best practice” not “minimum requirements”