Talk:Confirmation

More info on the Protestant tradition?

So far, this article has very little information on the Protestant tradition, which I find surprising. It's quite an important thing in Nordic countries at least, involving a period of intense Bible study (often at at least these points addressed in the article, but I'm not adding any myself since I'm just a generic religions geek and a Finn, so I'm only speaking from experience rather than citing authoritative texts:).--Snowgrouse 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lutheran View" confusing

While describing the Lutheran point of view, why confuse people with the German term for the non-Lutheran point of view (Firmung)?

As a native German speaker, I don't see that the fact that we happen to have a different term for the Roman Catholic ceremony has anything to do with the Lutheran point of view about confirmation. If it is really considered necessary to give the German word "Firmung" at some point (though I do not really see the necessity of this at all - you might as well give the Italian or French or Chinese term), in my opinion it belongs in the context of the Roman Catholic view.

If the whole article is linked to the German Wikipedia article on "Firmung", well, that is a different problem which should not be solved within the article, but by setting the correct links. This link, as it is, would turn the English term "Confirmation" into a solely Roman Catholic issue for anyone who relies on it.

Would somebody who knows how to do it maybe be so kind as to fix this? Anna (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as neither does anybody call the Catholic sacrament "Konfirmation" in Germany, the interlink gets one-sided by necessity: while I might think that a Catholic sacrament is a little more important than a Lutheran rite (no sacrament) which was, if I remember correctly, instituted against Martin Luther's own will and is far from general in Protestantism (or is it?). As well, the conflict is calmed down somewhat by the fact that the article for "Firmung" deals with the problem right at the beginning. Of course, I may be biased as a Catholic. For another reason, namely being German, I don't want to decide whether the English find it interesting to have an information about what is translated to what in German. It schmeichels, so to speak (what's the word for it?), me as a German of course. --84.154.43.88 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be flattering, but I can't see any encyclopedic sense or necessity in it.

And also - sorry but I've got so say this, or we have got a POV issue here - I don't quite see why the Roman Catholic point of view should be more important than any other denomination's point of view.

Either way, it seems that there are separate articles on each point of view (Confirmation (Catholic Church) and Confirmation (Lutheran Church)). Maybe we should just add the correct interwiki links to those articles and drop the one here. Some things obviously cannot be translated without getting lopsided. --Anna (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How to revoke confirmation?

Does anyone know the process for revoking confirmation? -Christiaan 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For the Catholic Church, no sacrament can be revoked - you cannot revoke a fact - and confirmation can no more be repeated than baptism - see sacramental character. Lima 04:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, so the only step one could take would be a personal renunciation I guess. Do you know of any formal process for renouncing Christianity in general? Self-excommunication maybe? -Christiaan 12:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The life outside the womb one is born to can be lost or just wasted, but one's birth cannot be revoked. The grace of the sacrament can be lost or just wasted, but the sacrament itself cannot be revoked. Lima 13:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The more I look into it the more it seems the only semi-formal road one can take is to apostate. The upside of this (for one who wants to renounce their Christianity) is that it results in automatic excommunication. -Christiaan 13:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Church never allows a sacrament to be revoked. One took place, ior it didn't. If it is a question of validity of the sacrament, that is a seperate discussion. If the question is church membership, once catholic always catholic. However, defection by formal act renders once outside the responibility to marriage laws with in the Church. On the US Catholic bishops website (www.usccb.org) you can read the explanatory note from the Holy See about canon 1086.1 (also www.clsa.org). DaveTroy 20:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

off-topic

You are seeking to void the legitimacy of your confirmation from a Roman Catholic understanding of this ritual? Deusveritasest (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. If you no longer consider yourself Catholic, you can just walk away and not worry about it anymore. Your status in the Catholic church is meaningless if you're no longer Catholic. I don't care that the Catholic church still considers me a Catholic any more than I would care if they considered me a hippopotamous. MrBook (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, if as a non-believer you consider your confirmation meaningless, why on earth would you want to have it "revoked"? A desire to have it "revoked" must mean that, in spite of all, you do believe in its efficacy. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do some people want to have their Confirmations "revoked," just because they became atheists or something else? Do Jewish people ever have their Bar/Bat Mitzvahs revoked, if/when they do not want to be Jewish anymore?--Splashen (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion needs "hiding" unless someone can tie it to improving the article. No one seems to be talking about adding "revocation" of a sacrament, since there is none. This should not be a "help" blog. There are other sites for that purpose. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

chrismation upon conversion is necessary

On the other hand, the Orthodox insist that chrismation upon conversion is necessary.

Do they do that even when the convert comes from an Eastern-rite Catholic church or an Oriental Orthodox church, where the same kind of chrismation rite immediately after baptism that is done in Eastern Orthodox churches? Michael Hardy 01:00, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is some confusion here, I think. What exactly is being referred to by "Eastern-rite Catholic Churches"? The Catholic Church hierarchy is not consistently documented here on Wikipedia. Psb777 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are churches that accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. They have the same beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church but use the same liturgy and practices of their own church, usually corresponding to an Eastern Orthodox Church. The requirements for chrismation (and for rebaptism) in Eastern Orthdox churches varies by jurisdiction (the Greek Orthodox may require it while the Russian Orthodox might not). Jason 22:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even with Eastern Catholics and Oriental Orthodox? It depends on the minister of the conversion. There is no one uniform practice in this matter throughout the EOC. In the most conservative of EO communities, such a person would actually be "re-baptized", though under the assumption that there previous baptism was not valid. Slightly more on the liberal end of the spectrum, many would, yes, administer chrismation to the convert as the means of their conversion, even if they received a chrismation in an EC or OO church, again under the assumption that their previous chrismation was not valid. Sometimes their previous chrismation would be recognized and their would confess their previous schismatic life and make a profession of faith. More liberally, the confession would be skipped and they would be received by a confession of faith. They may be received to Communicate after discussing with the priest and indicating that they will not Commune at their previous denomination. Finally, such a person may be simply received under no pretense of conversion at all. Also, how liberal the approach will be will be greater with Oriental Orthodox than with Eastern Catholics, because we have come to a high degree of agreement in faith that we have not with the Eastern Catholics. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Delegation

I'm pretty sure in the Roman church the Bishop can delegate permission to confer the sacrament of Confirmation to other priests in his diocese. Where I live that in fact had been done in the past, an oridnary priest was authorized to confirm individuals.

Correct, the bishop can always delegate the faculty for confirmation. However, any priest can confirm in emergency and when a priest receives someone into the Church, he can confirm at the time of reception the person being received. Both of these later are by the law itself. canon 882 and 883§3. DaveTroy 20:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

History of this sacrament

There is no mention to the history of this sacrament. I am very interested in knowing the history and development of the christian sacraments. It is quite difficult. Anyone has any ready knoledge? Please? JesseG 01:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jesster79, I would suggest you read Edward Foley's From age to Age which is about the history or Eucharistic theology and celebration. Also, if you go to a large book store site, you can probably type the name of the sacrament and search paramaters. DaveTroy

Also ask a priest or deacon.ray riordan

Roman Catholic views

The Roman Catholic Views section of this article appears to be written in the first person and is not neutral. Could someone please fix this? [anonymous unsigned comment]

The section is on "Roman Catholic views" and presents that Church's teaching on confirmation. The views of other Churches are presented in other sections. Lima 06:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

I notice that, throughout this article, SomeHuman has altered the names of the sacraments (Confirmation/confirmation, Baptism/baptism, Eucharist/eucharist) to give them lower-case initials. I have no personal preference in the matter, though I think that, in this article, capitalization shows up the specificity of the religious rite that the article is about, as indicated in its title. I have also long noticed that neither Microsoft Word nor WordPerfect accept "eucharist" (lower-case "e") as correct English spelling. Be all that as it may, my query is whether SomeHuman's unilateral action is in conformity with Wikipedia norms. Lima 07:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Before choosing whether to capitalize or not, I searched and could definitely not find a Wikipedia norm that indicates that all concepts considered sacred should be capitalized. In Wikipedia articles, though often normal characters are used, capitalization can be seen in some articles. Elsewhere, I too saw 'Eucharist' more often than 'eucharist', though I can not see a reason for this particular sacrament to be capitalized while 'communion' is not. Unlike other sacraments, this term is rarely used by non-Catholics and I assume that's why it is rarely found as 'eucharist'. What is certainly not acceptable for Wikipedia standards, is using normal characters for the same words used in relation to other religions, but capital letters in relation to Catholicism. That is how it was mostly in the article and that is what I changed; 'Eucharist' however was, once more, only used with respect to Catholicism, it seems logical to use the same spelling style as for other sacraments. When a term refers to a particular god, as another name, it is capitalized. 'Eucharist' is a rite of which Catholics believe the bread and/or wine is somehow transformed to Christ, in other words the term is not a name for Christ but a word for the transformation to Christ, hence not capitalized by Wikipedia standards. — SomeHuman 1 Sep2006 22:13 (UTC)

I am staying out of the SomeHuman versus Microsoft Word and WordPerfect quarrel. Lima 04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrations

The article skip how, if at all, the event is followed by secular celebration. At least with the danish tradition follows a celebration that easily rivals a Bar Mitzvah, with the same critizism; that for many young people the party and gifts become the main reason to be confirmated. Carewolf 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Confirmation (Christian sacrament) → Confirmation — This is the primary topic for the page name, per WP:DAB#Primary topic. Only one other topic on Confirmation (disambiguation) has an article, and the disambiguation page can remain where it is; links intended for a dictionary definition of "confirmation" should be delinked anyway (as it's not a viable topic), so that isn't a concern. —Dekimasuよ! 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose, there are four different uses for confirmation, Confirmation (disambiguation). —User:Christopher Mann McKay 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand your objection - I think I had addressed it above. The incoming links are for this topic. The disambiguation page would still disambiguate, the same way it does now. Dekimasuよ! 03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Confirmation (Christian sacrament) to Confirmation as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Chrismation

Why is Orthodox Chrismation assumed to be the same thing as the rite in the West known as Confirmation? Deusveritasest (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic section

Could someone trim the Roman Catholic section as it has its own article on the topic? Americanman095 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of subtopics

Why would this article start with "Confirmation in Judaism" if it's the least relevant subtopic? Rhetorical question. The article should start with the important body of the topic, its history and bigger relevance (hint: in Christianity). In other words, it's unlikely that the majority of people coming to this page are primarily concerned with "Confirmation in Judaism". Maybe I'm wrong!? In any case, I'll just head over to the jumbo shrimp page for now. They seem to at least have things in order. --71.168.215.63 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Esoglou (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Obligation for priests

The source states as implicating an obligation for non-bishop priests to confirm: "According to the ancient practice maintained in the Roman liturgy, an adult is not to be baptized unless he receives confirmation immediately afterward, provided no serious obstacles exist" (Christian Initiation of Adults, 34). Well that may be so, but I would doubt there is an obligation, and this on the following reasons.

• The Code of Canon law says the priests are, in that case, empowered to do so (nota bene: as extraordinary ministers even then), and if the Legislator would have wanted an obligation, he could simply have said so.
• We know of saints (Edith Stein) that had themselves baptized and confirmed on different days and this even for symbolical reasons.
• Even if a priest can confirm by priviledge (sort of "general priviledge"), his (or the baptizand's) very decision to leave it to the ordinary minister would be a "serious obstacle" in the sense of the source, except in danger of death, namely: absence of an ordinary minister; notwithstanding the fact that if he does not decide to do so, he can confirm of course, as extraordinary minister.

Of course I don't speak of cases where the bishop has no time and not only empowers, as even the Law does, but orders a priest with cure of souls to confirm. --84.154.43.88 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edith Stein was baptized and confirmed before 1972, the year of promulgation of the cited document. But the rest of this observation is basically correct, and the text of the article must be adjusted accordingly. Esoglou (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a confirmation ceremony in Reform Judaism

There is a confirmation ceremony in Reform Judaism. It is not identical to any of the Christian confirmations, but it does play an analogous role.

Source: About.Com Can you please explain Reform Judaism's Confirmation ritual?, Rabbi Jeffrey Wolfson Goldwasser http://judaism.about.com/od/birthtomarria2

"Up until the 1970s, many Reform congregations did not offer bar mitzvah celebrations for their young people because -- as the thinking used to go -- they did not consider thirteen to be an appropriate age for conferring the obligations of adulthood on a child. Instead, the early Reform Movement created a ritual called "Confirmation." "

Like bar or bat mitzvah, confirmation celebrates young people's (boys and girls) coming of age. Most confirmations are done at Shavuot for the class of students completing religious school, often at the end of tenth, eleventh or twelfth grade.

Starting in the 1970s, the Reform Movement saw an increasing number of congregants with backgrounds in Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. This was a major factor in the decision to revive celebrations for boys becoming bar mitzvah and to introduce bat mitzvah celebrations for girls. Today, almost every Reform congregation celebrates both bar/bat mitzvah and confirmation.

Confirmation, however, is more than a vestige of past Reform practice. As it has developed over the years, confirmation has taken on meaning that makes it an important life-cycle event. In contrast to bar/bat mitzvah, confirmation is a group event. Students in a class are confirmed together and they often prepare a tzedakah project as a group as part of their confirmation. This emphasizes the importance of communal action that is at the heart of Judaism. <

RK (talk)

A minor note of caution: Do not confuse Reform Judaism's 'confirmation' rite with that of B'nai Mitzvah (becoming Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah); they are separate ceremonies, done at different times. Reform Judaism originally developed the idea of confirmation because - at the time - they believed that it was inappropriate for 13 year old boy, or 12 year old girl, to have a Bar/Bat mitzvah. They believed that children of this age were not mature enough to uncerstand what it means to be religious, and that children of this age were not responsibile enough to observe religious practices.

Also, I added many details from the Public Domain Jewish Encyclopedia. RK (talk)

When I was growing up on Long Island in the 1970s, our Conservative synagogue celebrated both b'nai mitzah AND Jewish Confirmation. One was Bar/Bat Mitzvah at 13, and then if the youth chose to continue with his/her Jewish studies, would have a smaller Confirmation ceremony at about age 16. This was not a requirement. Additionally, the tzedakah projects common for modern (two-thousand-teens) Reform and Conservative b'nai mitzvah candidates were not required. 68.83.46.229 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Anointing

There seems to be a small edit war going on about the first sentence of the article, and if the anointing necessarily belongs to the rite of confirmation or only "possibly".

While not in the least interested in entering in on this edit war, I do want to remark that this article is on confirmation in general and in all denominations, not on confirmation in certain particular denominations which may always practice the anointing. There are a number of denominations which do not practice the anointing at all, or only occasionally. Therefore, this sentence definitely needs some kind of term like "possibly" or "in some denominations". --Anna (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This has now been changed again, without even commenting here or apparently even understanding the reasons. Nobody doubts that anointing may be essential in some denominations. But again: This is an article on confirmation in ALL denominations, not just Eastern Orthodox or related churches. Therefore, it is simply WRONG to make the general statement that it is "normally carried out through anointing". --Anna (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought the reason was obvious. Not all Christians see the "laying on of hands and prayer" as essential for confirmation: most of them (Roman Catholics are already half, and add to them the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and probably others about whom I have no evidence for or against) see as essential instead anointing with chrism, as indicated in the edit summary. At the very point of the article where you want it to make the false claim that all Christians see the laying of of hands and prayer as essential, doesn't the illustration there, at the beginning of the article, show a bishop confirming without laying on hands, but instead using some instrument (a brush?) to do the anointing? Please restore the "and/or" version. Esoglou (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get your point. Are you saying that "laying on of hands and prayer" are not essential in all denominations either? Well, then we have got to differentiate in some way concerning that wording too. Something like "in some/ many/ most/... denominations".

That is a different point however. It does NOT in any way alter the fact that the anointing is NOT essential in all denominations, and that making this statement in the general definition is simply wrong. --Anna (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The present text does NOT say that anointing is essential in all denominations. Neither does it say that the laying on of hands is essential in all denominations. Prayer is essential in all denominations (in the Roman Rite: "N., be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit", preceded, admittedly, by a longer prayer said by the bishop, while he and the other priests present extend their hands over the whole group collectively of those about to be confirmed). In the East, the whole body is anointed with chrism (not a laying on of hands, as usually understood); in the whole of the pre-Protestant and the great majority of today's West, the forehead is anointed with chrism (the picture shows that the anointing need not be done with the hand). I don't think it is necessary to state that the anointing with chrism is what is essential for most Christians, but if you want to add this, by all means go ahead. Esoglou (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglican Confirmation

Are there Anglican Churches that use chrism for Confirmation? Generally, more information should be given on the ritual: Which church uses which ritual elements (chrism, laying on hands, prayer, blessings)?--Hannesde Correct me! 23:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Filipino non-Catholic students undergo confirmation?

Some student-candidates who are Protestants like Anglicans and Methodists do undergo confirmation by Catholic bishops, per school rules. Do the local Catholic authorities who control high schools allow this? Every denomination that has confirmation apply it to its adherents only. I think this rule is not followed. Why? Local ecumenism Santiago Claudio (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We need a citation to be able to discuss this further. As far as we know this never happens except, possibly, by accident. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Waivers to be signed by parents/guardians are given to the candidates. Eligible non-Catholics among them may need to seek approval of their respective churches' authorities.Santiago Claudio (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Without such a citation, we can proceed no further regardless of what "you have heard or seen." Student7 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Confirmation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042345/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3N.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042414/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3P.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3P.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221180735/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Prjkilh0?url=http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html to http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Confirmation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411202541/http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=24839 to http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=24839
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003045214/http://www.interchurchfamilies.org/journal/firs_com.shtm to http://www.interchurchfamilies.org/journal/firs_com.shtm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428000914/http://rethinkbishop.com/tag/the-united-methodist-church/ to http://rethinkbishop.com/tag/the-united-methodist-church/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425013957/http://catechumen.org.uk/confirmation/ to http://catechumen.org.uk/confirmation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Confirmand" or "Confirmant"?

The article uses both terms. It should standardize on one or the other.

According to Wictionary, confirmand is an English word with the definition we're looking for, while confirmant is not even an English word. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:31C1:A0AF:B3A7:366E (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Vormsel

Vormsel is waar je in de jerk 186.179.209.70 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Merging suggestion

I propose to merge this page with the following page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_in_the_Catholic_Church

Wikidata Q12311433 LucekFR (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)