|
|
Confirmation
A
sacrament in which the
Holy Ghost is given to those already
baptized in order to
make them strong and perfect
Christians and soldiers
of Jesus Christ.
It has been variously
designated: bebaiosis or confirmatio, a making fast or sure;
teleiosis or consummatio, a perfecting or completing, as expressing
its relation to baptism. With reference to its effect it is the "Sacrament of
the Holy Ghost", the "Sacrament of the Seal" (signaculum, sigillum, sphragis).
From the external rite it is known as the "imposition of hands" (epithesis
cheiron), or as "anointing with chrism" (unctio, chrismatio, chrisma,
myron). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church,
confirmatio, and for the Greek, to myron.
I. PRESENT PRACTICE
AND DOCTRINE
Rite
In the Western Church the
sacrament is usually administered by the bishop. At the beginning of the
ceremony there is a general imposition of hands, the bishop meantime praying
that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those who have already been regenerated:
"send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit the Holy Paraclete." He then anoints
the forehead of each with chrism saying: "I sign thee with the
sign of the cross and
confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost." Finally. he gives each a slight blow on the cheek
saying: "peace be with thee". A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell
in the hearts of those who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the
bishop's blessing.
The Eastern Church omits
the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the
anointing with the words: "the sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost."
These several actions symbolize the nature and purpose of the sacrament: the
anointing signifies the strength given for the spiritual conflict; the balsam
contained in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ;
the sign of the cross
on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ, before all men; the imposition
of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrollment in the service of Christ which
brings true peace to the soul.
(Cf. St. Thomas, III:72:4).
Minister
The bishop alone is the
ordinary minister of confirmation. This is expressly declared by the
Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Conf., C. iii). A bishop confirms validly even
those who are not his own subjects; but to confirm licitly in another diocese he
must secure the permission of the bishop of that diocese. Simple priests may be
the extraordinary ministers of the sacrament under certain conditions. In
such cases, however, the priest cannot wear pontifical vestments, and he is
obliged to use chrism blessed by a Catholic bishop. In the Greek Church,
confirmation is given by simple priests without special delegation, and their
ministration is accepted by the Western Church as valid. They must, however, use
chrism blessed by a patriarch.
Matter and Form
There has been much
discussion among theologians as to what constitutes the essential matter of this
sacrament. Some, e.g. Aureolus and Petavius, held that it consists in the
imposition of hands. Others, with St. Thomas, Bellarmine, and Maldonatus,
maintain that it is the anointing with chrism. According to a third opinion (Morinus,
Tapper) either anointing or imposition of hands suffices. Finally, the most
generally accepted view is that the anointing and the imposition of hands
conjointly are the matter. The "imposition", however, is not that with which the
rite begins but the laying on of hands which takes place in the act of
anointing. As Peter the
Lombard declares: Pontifex per impositionem manus confirmandos ungit in
fronte (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, n. 1; cf. De Augustinis, "De re
sacramentaria", 2d ed,, Rome, 1889, I). The chrism employed must be a mixture of
olive oil and balsam consecrated by a bishop. (For the manner of this
consecration and for other details, historical and liturgical, see CHRISM.) The
difference regarding the form of the sacrament, i.e. the words essential for
confirmation, has been indicated above in the description of the rite. The
validity of both the Latin and the Greek form is unquestionable. Additional
details are given below in the historical outline.
Recipient
Confirmation can be
conferred only on those who have already been baptized and have not yet been
confirmed. As St. Thomas says:
Confirmation is to
baptism what growth is to generation. Now it is clear that a man cannot
advance to a perfect age unless he has first been born; in like manner, unless
he has first been baptized he cannot receive the Sacrament of Confirmation
(ST III:72:6).
They should also be in
the state of grace; for the Holy Ghost is not given for the purpose of taking
away sin but of conferring additional grace. This condition, however, refers
only to lawful reception; the sacrament is validly received even by those in
mortal sin. In the early ages of the Church, confirmation was part of the rite
of initiation, and consequently was administered immediately after baptism.
When, however, baptism came to be conferred by simple priests, the two
ceremonies were separated in the Western Church. Further, when infant baptism
became customary, confirmation was not administered until the child had attained
the use of reason. This is the present practice, though there is considerable
latitude as to the precise age. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that
the sacrament can be administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is
not expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting that
the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old, "for Confirmation
has not been instituted as necessary for salvation, but that by virtue thereof
we might be found well armed and prepared when called upon to fight for the
faith of Christ, and for this kind of conflict no one will consider children,
who are still without the use of reason, to be qualified." (Pt. II, ch. iii,
18.) Such, in fact, is the general usage in the Western Church. Under certain
circumstances, however, as, for instance, danger of death, or when the
opportunity of receiving the sacrament is but rarely offered, even younger
children may be confirmed. In the Greek Church and in Spain, infants are now, as
in earlier times, confirmed immediately after baptism. Leo XIII, writing 22
June, 1897, to the Bishop of Marseilles, commends most heartily the practice of
confirming children before their first communion as being more in accord with
the ancient usage of the Church.
Effects
Confirmation imparts
-
an increase of
sanctifying grace which makes the recipient a "perfect
Christian";
-
a special sacramental
grace consisting in the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost and notably in the
strength and courage to confess boldly the name of Christ;
-
an indelible
character by reason
of which the sacrament cannot be received again by the same person.
A further consequence is
the spiritual relationship
which the person confirming and the sponsor contract with the recipient and with
the recipient's parents. This relationship constitutes a diriment impediment
(see IMPEDIMENTS) to marriage. It does not arise between the minister of the
sacrament and the sponsor nor between the sponsors themselves.
Necessity
Regarding the obligation
of receiving the sacrament, it is admitted that confirmation is not necessary as
an indispensable means of salvation (necessitate medii).
On the other hand, its
reception is obligatory (necessitate præcepti) "for all those who are
able to understand and fulfill the
Commandments of God and
of the Church. This is
especially true of those who suffer persecution on account of their religion or
are exposed to grievous temptations against faith or are in danger of death. The
more serious the danger so much greater is the need of protecting oneself".
(Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 250.) As to the gravity of the obligation, opinions
differ, some theologians holding that an unconfirmed person would commit mortal
sin if he refused the sacrament, others that the sin would be at most venial
unless the refusal implied contempt for the sacrament. Apart, however, from such
controversies the importance of confirmation as a means of grace is so obvious
that no earnest Christian
will neglect it, and in particular that
Christian parents will
not fail to see that their children are confirmed.
Sponsors
The Church prescribes
under pain of grievous sin that a sponsor, or godparent, shall stand for the
person confirmed. The sponsor should be at least fourteen years of age, of the
same sex as the candidate, should have already received the Sacrament of
Confirmation, and be well instructed in the Catholic Faith. From this office are
excluded the father and mother of the candidate, members of a religious order
(unless the candidate be a religious), public sinners, and those who are under
public ban of interdict
or excommunication.
Except in case of necessity the baptismal godparent cannot serve as sponsor for
the same person in confirmation. Where the opposite practice obtains, it should,
according to a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 Feb., 1884,
be gradually done away with. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866)
declared that each candidate should have a sponsor, or that at least two
godfathers should stand for the boys and two godmothers for the girls (n. 253).
See also prescriptions of the First Council of Westminster. Formerly it was
customary for the sponsor to place his or her right foot upon the foot of the
candidate during the administration of the sacrament; the present usage is that
the sponsor's right hand should be placed upon the right shoulder of the
candidate. The Holy Office decreed, 16 June, 1884, that no sponsor could stand
for more than two candidates except in case of necessity. The custom of giving a
new name to the candidate is not obligatory; but it has the sanction of several
synodal decrees during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Fifth Council
of Milan, under St. Charles
Borromeo, insisted that a candidate whose name was "vile, ridiculous, or
quite unbecoming for a
Christian" should receive another at Confirmation" (cf. Martène).
It is clear from the
diversity of practice at the present day, that there is much uncertainty as to
the doctrine concerning confirmation. It is certain that the sacrament is
validly and lawfully administered in the Church; but this does not solve the
theological questions regarding its institution, matter, form, and minister. At
the time of the Council of Trent the difficulty was felt to be so great that the
assembled Fathers contented themselves with only a few canons on the subject.
They defined that confirmation was not "a vain ceremony but a true and proper
sacrament"; and that it was not "in olden days nothing but a sort of catechism
in which those who were entering upon youth gave an account of their faith in
the face of the Church" (can. i). They did not define anything specific about
the institution by Christ; though in treating of the sacraments in general they
had already defined that "all the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by
Christ our Lord" (Sess. VII, can. i). Nothing whatever was said about the form
of words to be used; and regarding the matter they merely condemned any one who
should maintain "that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of
confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost" (can. ii). The third and last
canon defined that the "ordinary" minister of the sacrament is a bishop only,
and not any simple priest. This guarded language, so different from the definite
canons on some of the other sacraments, shows that the council had no intention
of deciding the questions at issue among theologians regarding the time and
manner of the institution by Christ (direct or indirect institution), the matter
(imposition of hands or anointing, or both), the form ("I sign thee", etc., or
"the seal", etc.), and the minister (bishop or priest). Elsewhere (Sess. VII,
can. ix) the council defined that in confirmation a character is imprinted in
the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign on account of which
the sacrament cannot be repeated; and again (Sess. XXIII) the council declared
that "bishops are superior to priests; they administer the Sacrament of
Confirmation; they ordain the ministers of the Church; and they can perform many
other things over which functions others of an inferior rank have no power".
Concerning the administration of the sacrament from the earliest times of the
Church, the decree of the Inquisition (Lamentabili sane, 3 July, 1907) condemns
the proposition (44): "There is no proof that the rite of the Sacrament of
Confirmation was employed by the Apostles; the formal distinction, therefore,
between the two sacraments, Baptism and Confirmation, does not belong to the
history of Christianity".
The institution of the sacrament has also been the subject of much discussion as
will appear from the following account.
II. HISTORY
The Sacrament of
Confirmation is a striking instance of the development of doctrine and ritual in
the Church. We can, indeed, detect much more than the mere germs of it in Holy
Scripture; but we must not expect to find there an exact description of the
ceremony as at present performed, or a complete solution of the various
theological questions which have since arisen. It is only from the Fathers and
the Schoolmen that we can gather information on these heads.
(1) Confirmation in
the Bible
We read in the Acts of
the Apostles (viii, 14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized
by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when
they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he
was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus; then
they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost". Again (xix,
1-6): St. Paul "came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to
them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him:
We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what
then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John
baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things,
they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus. And when
Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they
spoke with tongues and prophesied". From these two passages we learn that in the
earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which
the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos
ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was
not implied in the power to baptize. No distinct mention is made as to the
origin of this rite; but Christ promised the gift of the Holy Ghost and
conferred it. Again, no express mention is made of anointing with chrism; but we
note that the idea of unction is commonly associated with the giving of the Holy
Ghost. Christ (Luke, iv, 18) applies to Himself the words of Isaias (lxi, 1):
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel". St. Peter (Acts, x, 38) speaks of "Jesus
of Nazareth: how God
anointed him with the Holy Ghost". St. John tells the faithful: "You have the
unction (chrisma) from the Holy One, and know all things"; and again:
"Let the unction [chrisma], which you have received from him, abide in
you" (I Ep., ii, 20, 27). A striking passage, which was made much use of by the
Fathers and the Schoolmen, is that of St. Paul: "He that confirmeth [ho de
bebaion] us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is
God, who also hath
sealed [sphragisamenos] us, and given us the pledge [arrabona] of
the Spirit in our hearts" (II Cor., i, 20, 21). No mention is made of any
particular words accompanying the imposition of hands on either of the occasions
on which the ceremony is described; but as the act of imposing hands was
performed for various purposes, some prayer indicating the special purpose may
have been used: "Peter and John . . . prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Ghost". Further, such expressions as "signing" and "sealing" may be
taken as referring to the character impressed by the sacrament: "You were signed
[esphragisthete] with the holy Spirit of promise"; "Grieve not the
holy Spirit of God,
whereby you are sealed [esphragisthete] unto the day of redemption"
(Eph., i, 13; iv, 30). See also the passage from II Cor. quoted above. Again, in
the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi, 1-4) the writer reproaches those whom he
addresses for falling back into their primitive imperfect knowledge of
Christian truth;
"whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again
what are the first elements of the words of
God" (Heb., v, 12). He
exhorts them: "leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to
things more perfect, not laying again the foundation . . . of the doctrine of
baptisms, and imposition of hands", and speaks of them as those who have been
"once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers
of the Holy Ghost". It is clear that reference is made here to the ceremony of
Christian initiation:
baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the Holy Ghost was conferred, just
as in Acts, ii, 38. The ceremony is considered to be so well known to the
faithful that no further description is necessary. This account of the practice
and teaching of the Apostles proves that the ceremony was no mere examination of
those already baptized, no mere profession of faith or renewal of baptismal
vows. Nor was it something specially conferred upon the Samaritans and
Ephesians. What was done to them was an instance of what was generally bestowed.
Nor was it a mere bestowal of charismata; the Holy Ghost sometimes produced
extraordinary effects (speaking with divers tongues, etc.), but these were not
necessarily the result of His being given. The practice and teaching of the
Church at the present day preserve the primitive type: the imposition of hands,
the gift of the Holy Ghost, the privileges of the episcopate. What further
elements were handed down by tradition will be seen presently.
(2) Church Fathers
In passing from Holy
Scripture to the Fathers we naturally expect to find more definite answers to
the various questions regarding the sacrament. From both their practice and
their teaching we learn that the Church made use of a rite distinct from
baptism; that this consisted of imposition of hands, anointing, and accompanying
words; that by this rite the Holy Ghost was conferred upon those already
baptized, and a mark or seal impressed upon their souls; that, as a rule, in the
West the minister was a bishop, whereas in the East he might be a simple priest.
The Fathers considered that the rites of initiation (baptism, confirmation, and
the Holy Eucharist) were instituted by Christ, but they did not enter into any
minute discussion as to the time, place, and manner of the institution, at least
of the second of these rites. In examining the testimonies of the Fathers we
should note that the word confirmation is not used to designate this
sacrament during the first four centuries; but we meet with various other terms
and phrases which quite clearly refer to it. Thus, it is styled "imposition of
hands" (manuum impositio, cheirothesia), "unction", "chrism", "sealing",
etc. Before the time of
Tertullian the Fathers do not make any explicit mention of confirmation as
distinct from baptism. The fact that the two sacraments were conferred together
may account for this silence.
Tertullian (De Bapt.,
vi) is the first to distinguish clearly the three acts of initiation: "After
having come out of the laver, we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction
[perungimur benedictâ unctione] according to the ancient rule . . . The
unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually . . . . Next to this, the
hand is laid upon us through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy
Spirit [dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans et invitans
Spiriturn Sanctum]," Again (De resurr, carnis, n, 8): "The flesh is washed
that the soul may be made stainless. The flesh is anointed [ungitur] that
the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sealed [signatur] that the soul
may be fortified. The flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands that the
soul may be illuminated by the Spirit, The flesh is fed by the Body and Blood of
Christ that the soul may be fattened of
God." And (Adv, Marcion.,
i, n. 14): "But He [Christ], indeed even at the present time, neither rejected
the water of the Creator with which He washes clean His own, nor the oil with
which He anoints His own; . . . nor the bread with which He makes present [repræsentat]
His own very body, needing even in His own sacraments the beggarly elements of
the Creator," Tertullian
also tells how the devil,
imitating the rites of
Christian initiation, sprinkles some and signs them as his soldiers on the
forehead (signat illic in frontibus milites suos -- De Præscript., xl).
Another great African
Father speaks with equal clearness of confirmation, "Two sacraments", says
St. Cyprian, "preside
over the perfect birth of a
Christian, the one regenerating the man, which is baptism, the other
communicating to him the Holy Spirit" (Epist. lxxii), "Anointed also must he be
who is baptized, in order that having received the chrism, that is the unction,
he may be anointed of God"
(Epist. lxx), "It was not fitting that [the Samaritans] should be baptized
again, but only what was wanting, that was done by Peter and John; that prayer
being made for them and hands imposed, the Holy Ghost should be invoked and
poured forth upon them. Which also is now done among us; so that they who are
baptized in the Church are presented to the bishops [prelates] of the Church,
and by our prayer and imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Ghost and are
perfected with the seal [signaculo] of the Lord" (Epist. lxxiii),
"Moreover, a person is not born by the imposition of hands, when he receives the
Holy Ghost, but in baptism; that being already born he may receive the Spirit,
as was done in the first man Adam. For
God first formed him
and breathed into his face the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received
except there is first one to receive it. But the birth of
Christians is in
baptism" (Epist. lxxiv). Pope St, Cornelius complains that Novatus, after having
been baptized on his sickbed, "did not receive the other things which ought to
be partaken of according to the rule of the Church--to be sealed, that is, by
the bishop [sphragisthenai ypo tou episkopou] and not having received
this, how did he receive the Holy Ghost?" (Euseb., H.E., vi, xliii). In the
fourth and fifth centuries the testimonies are naturally more frequent and
clear. St. Hilary speaks of "the sacraments of baptism and of the Spirit"; and
he says that "the favor and gift of the Holy Spirit were, when the work of the
Law ceased, to be given by the imposition of hands and prayer" (In Matt., c. iv,
c. xiv). St. Cyril of Jerusalem is the great Eastern authority on the subject,
and his testimony is all the more important because he devoted several of his
"Catecheses" to the instruction of catechumens in the three sacraments which
they were to receive on being initiated into the
Christian mysteries.
Nothing could be clearer than his language: "To you also after you had come up
from the pool of the sacred streams, was given the chrism [unction], the emblem
of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost. . . This holy
ointment is no longer plain ointment nor so as to say common, after the
invocation, but Christ's
gift; and by the presence of His
Godhead, it causes in
us the Holy Ghost, This symbolically anoints thy forehead, and thy other senses;
and the body indeed is anointed with visible ointment, but the soul is
sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit . . . . To you not in figure but
in truth, because ye were in truth anointed by the Spirit" (Cat. Myst., iii).
And in the seventeenth catechesis on the Holy Ghost, speaks of the visit of
Peter and John to communicate to the Samaritans the gift of the Holy Ghost by
prayer and the imposition of hands. Forget not the Holy Ghost", he says to the
catechumens, "at the moment of your enlightenment; He is ready to mark your soul
with His seal [sphragisai] . . . He will give you the heavenly and divine
seal [sphragisai] which makes the
devils tremble; He will
arm you for the fight; He will give you strength." Christ, says St, Optatus of
Mileve, "went down into the water, not that there was what could be cleansed in
God, but the water
ought to go before the oil that was to supervene, in order to initiate and in
order to fill up the mysteries of baptism; having been washed whilst He was held
in John's hands, the order of the mystery is followed . . . . Heaven is opened
whilst the Father anoints; the spiritual oil in the image of the Dove
immediately descended and rested on His head, and poured on it oil, whence He
took the name of Christ, when He was anointed by
God the Father; to whom
that the imposition of hands might not seem to have been wanting, the voice of
God is heard from a
cloud, saying, This is my Son, of whom I have thought well; hear ye him" (De
schism, Donat., I, iv, n. 7).
St. Ephraem Syrus speaks
of "the Sacraments of Chrism and Baptism" (Serm. xxvii); "oil also for a most
sweet unguent, wherewith they who already have been initiated by baptism are
sealed, and put on the armour of the Holy Spirit" (In Joel.) St. Ambrose
addressing the catechumens who had already been baptized and anointed, says:
"Thou hast received the spiritual seal, the Spirit of wisdom and of
understanding . . . . Keep what thou hast received.
God the Father has
sealed thee; Christ the Lord has confirmed thee; and the Spirit has given the
pledge in thy heart, as thou hast learned from what is read in the Apostle" (De
myst., c. vii, n. 42). The writer of the "De Sacramentis" (Inter Op. Ambros.,
lib. III, c. ii, n. 8) says that after the baptismal immersion "the spiritual
seal [signaculum] follows . . . when at the invocation of the bishop [sacerdotis]
the Holy Ghost is infused". The Council of Elvira decreed that those who had
been baptized privately in case of necessity should afterwards be taken to the
bishop "to be made perfect by the imposition of hands" (can. xxxviii, Labbe, I,
974). And the Council of Laodicea: "Those who have been converted from the
heresies . . . are not to be received before they
anathematize every
heresy . . . and then after that, those who were called faithful among them,
having learned the creeds of the faith, and having been anointed with the holy
chrism, shall so communicate of the holy mystery" (can. vii). "Those who are
enlightened must after baptism be anointed with the heavenly chrism, and be
partakers of the kingdom of Christ" (can. xlviii, Labbe, I, col. 1497). The
Council of Constantinople (381): "We receive the
Arians, and Macedonians
. . . upon their giving in written statements and
anathematizing every
heresy . . . . Having first sealed them with the holy ointment upon the
forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and sealing them we say,
' The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost"' (can. vii, Labbe, II, col. 952). St.
Augustine explains how the coming of the Holy Ghost was companied with the gift
of tongues in the first ages of the Church. "These were
miracles suited to the
times . . . .
Is it now expected that
they upon whom hands are laid, should speak with tongues? Or when we imposed our
hand upon these children, did each of you wait to see whether they would speak
with tongues? and when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of
you so perverse of heart as to say 'These have not received the Holy Ghost?"'
(In Ep, Joan,, tr, vi), He also speaks in the same way about anointing: the
sacrament of chrism "is in the genus of visible signs, sacrosanct like baptism"
(Contra litt, Petil., II, cap, civ, in P. L., XLI, col. 342; see Serm, ccxxvii,
Ad Infantes in P, L., XXXVII, col. 1100; De Trin., XV, n, 46 in P. L., XL, col.
1093); "Of Christ it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, how
God anointed Him with
the Holy Ghost, not indeed with visible oil, but with the gift of grace, which
is signified by that visible unction wherewith the Church anoints the baptized".
The most explicit passage is in the letter of
Pope Innocent I to
Decentius: "As regards the sealing of infants, it is clear that it is not lawful
for it to be done by anyone but a bishop [non ab aliis quam ab episcopo fieri
licere]. For presbyters, though they be priests of the second rank (second
priests), have not attained to the summit of the pontificate. That this
pontificate is the right of bishops only--to wit: that they may seal or deliver
the Spirit, the Paraclete is demonstrated not merely by ecclesiastical usage,
but also by that portion of the Acts of the Apostles wherein it is declared that
Peter and John were sent to give the Holy Ghost to those who had already been
baptized. For when presbyters baptize, whether with or without the presence of
the bishop, they may anoint the baptized with chrism, provided it be previously
consecrated by a bishop, but not sign the forehead with that oil, which is a
right reserved to bishops [episcopis] only, when they give the Spirit,
the Paraclete. The words, however, I cannot name, for fear of seeming to betray
rather than to reply to the point on which you have consulted me," Saint Leo in
his fourth sermon on
Christ's Nativity says to the faithful: "Having been regenerated by water
and the Holy Ghost, you have received the chrism of salvation and the seal of
eternal life" (chrisma salutis et signaculum vitae æternæ, -- P. L., LIV,
col. 207), The Blessed Theodoret commenting on the first chapter of the Canticle
of Canticles says: "Bring to thy recollection the holy rite of initiation, in
which they who are perfected after the renunciation of the tyrant and the
acknowledgment of the King, receive as a kind of royal seal the chrism of the
spiritual unction (sphragida tina basiliken . . . tou pneumatikou myron to
chrisma) as made partakers in that typical ointment of the invisible grace
of the Holy Spirit" (P. G., LXXXI, 60).
Among the homilies
formerly attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, but now admitted to be the work of
some bishop of Southern Gaul in the fifth century, is a long homily for
Whitsunday: "The Holy Ghost who comes down with a life-giving descent upon the
waters of baptism, in the font bestows beauty unto innocence, in confirmation
grants an increase unto grace. Because we have to walk during our whole life in
the midst of invisible enemies and dangers, we are in baptism regenerated unto
life, after baptism we are confirmed for the battle; in baptism we are cleansed,
after baptism we are strengthened . . . . confirmation arms and furnishes
weapons to those who are reserved for the wrestlings and contests of this world"
(Bib. Max., SS. PP., VI, p. 649), These passages suffice to show the doctrine
and practice of the Church during the patristic age,
(3) Early Middle Ages
After the great
Trinitarian and Christological controversies had been decided, and the doctrine
of Divine grace had been defined, the Church was able to devote attention to
questions regarding the sacraments, the means of grace. At the same time, the
sacramentaries were being drawn up, fixing the various rites in use, With
precision of practice came greater precision and completeness of doctrine. "Chrisma",
says St. Isidore of Seville, "is in Latin, called 'unctio' and from it Christ
receives His name, and man is sanctified after the laver [lavacrum]; for
as in baptism remission of sins is given, so by anointing [unctio] the
sanctification of the Spirit is conferred. The imposition of hands takes place
in order that the Holy Spirit, being called by the blessing, may be invited [per
benedictionem advocatus invitetur Spiritus Sanctus]; for after the bodies
have been cleansed and blessed, then does the Paraclete willingly come down from
the Father" (Etym., VI, c.xix in P.L., LXXXII, col. 256). The great Anglo-Saxon
lights of the early Middle
Ages are equally explicit. "The confirmation of the newly baptized", says
Lingard (Anglo-Saxon Church, I, p. 296), "was made an important part of the
bishop's duty. We repeatedly read of journeys undertaken by St. Cuthbert chiefly
with this object . . . . Children were brought to him for confirmation from the
secluded parts of the country; and he ministered to those who had been recently
born again in Christ the grace of the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands,
'placing his hand on the head of each, and anointing them with the chrism which
he had blessed (manum imponens super caput singulorum, liniens unctione
consecratâ quam benedixerat; Beda, "Vita Cuth.", c. xxix, xxxii in P.L.,
XCIV, Oper. Min., p. 277)." Alcuin also in his letter to Odwin describes how the
neophyte, after the reception of baptism and the Eucharist, prepares to receive
the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. "Last of all by the imposition of
the hands by the chief priest [summo sacerdote] he receives the Spirit of
the seven-fold grace to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit to fight against
others" (De bapt. cæremon. in P.L., CI, col. 614). It will be observed that in
all these passages imposition of hands is mentioned; St. Isidore and St. Bede
mention anointing also. These may be taken as typical examples; the best
authorities of this age combine the two ceremonies. As to the form of words used
the greatest variety prevailed. The words accompanying the imposition of hands
were generally a prayer calling upon
God to send down the
Holy Ghost and confer upon the neophytes the seven gifts. In the Gregorian
Sacramentary no words at all are assigned to the anointing; but it is clear that
the anointing must be taken in connection with the words belonging to the
imposition of hands. Where special words are assigned they sometimes resemble
the Greek formulary (signum Christi in vitam æternam, etc.), or are
indicative, like the present formula (signo, consigno, confirmo), or
imperative (accipe signum, etc.), or deprecatory (confirmet vos Pater
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, etc.). St. Isidore is clearly in favor of a
prayer: "We can receive the Holy Ghost, but we cannot give Him: that He may be
given, we call upon God"
(De Off. Eccl., II, c. xxvi in P.L., LXXXIII, col. 823). In contrast with this
diversity as to the form there is complete agreement that the sole minister is a
bishop. Of course this refers only to the Western Church. The writers appeal to
the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. St. Isidore, "De Off. Eccl.", II, c. xxvi; St.
Bede, "In Act. Apost." in P.L., XCII, col. 961; "Vit. Cuth.", c. xxix); but they
do not examine the reason why the power is reserved to the bishops, nor do they
discuss the question of the time and mode of the institution of the sacrament.
(4) Scholastic
Theology
The teaching of the
Schoolmen shows a marked advance upon that of the early
Middle Ages. The
decision as to the number of the sacraments involved the clear distinction of
confirmation from baptism; and at the same time the more exact definition of
what constitutes a sacrament led to the discussion of the institution of
confirmation, its matter and form, minister, and effects, especially the
character impressed. We can follow the development through the labors of
Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Anselm his successor, Abelard, Hugh of
St. Victor, Peter Lombard
(Sent., IV, dist. vii); then branching out into the two distinct schools of
Dominicans (Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas) and Franciscans (Alexander of Hales,
St. Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus). As we shall see, the clearness with which the
various questions were set forth by no means produced unanimity; rather it
served to bring out the uncertainty with regard to them all. The writers start
from the fact that there was in the Church a ceremony of anointing with chrism
accompanied with the words: "I sign thee with the
sign of the cross",
etc.; this ceremony was performed by a bishop only, and could not be repeated.
When they came to examine the doctrine underlying this practice they all
admitted that it was a sacrament, though in the earlier writers the word
sacrament had not yet acquired a distinct technical meaning. So strongly did
they insist upon the principle Lex orandi, lex credendi, that they took
for granted that the anointing must be the matter, and the words "I sign thee",
etc., the form, and that no one but a bishop could be the valid minister. But
when they came to justify this doctrine by the authority of Scripture they
encountered the difficulty that no mention is made there either of the anointing
or of the words; indeed nothing is said of the institution of the sacrament at
all. What could be the meaning of this silence? How could it be explained?
(a) The institution of
the sacrament
Regarding the institution
there were three opinions. The Dominican School taught that Christ Himself was
the immediate author of confirmation. Earlier writers (e.g. Hugh of St. Victor,
"De Sacram.", ii, and Peter
Lombard, "Sent.", IV, dist. vii) held that it was instituted by the Holy
Ghost through the instrumentality of the Apostles. The Franciscans also
maintained that the Holy Ghost was the author, but that He acted either through
the Apostles or through the Church after the death of the Apostles. St. Thomas
says,
Concerning the
institution of this sacrament, there are two opinions: some say that it was
instituted neither by Christ nor by His Apostles, but later on in the course
of time at a certain council [Meaux, 845; this was the opinion of Alexander of
Hales, Summ., iv, q. 9, m.], whereas others said that it was instituted by the
Apostles. But this cannot be the case, because the institution of a sacrament
belongs to the power of excellence which is proper to Christ alone. And
therefore we must hold that Christ instituted this sacrament, not by showing
it [exhibendo] but by promising it, according to the text (John, xvi,
7), "If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send
Him to you." And this because in this sacrament the fullness of the Holy Ghost
is given, which was not to be given before
Christ's
resurrection and
ascension, according
to the text (John, vii, 39), "As yet the Spirit was not given, because
Jesus was not yet
glorified." ((ST III:72:1).
It will be noticed that
the Angelic Doctor
hesitates a little about the direct institution by Christ (non exhibendo, sed
promittendo). In his earlier work (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1) he had
said plainly that Christ had instituted the sacrament and had Himself
administered it (Matt., xix). In this opinion the saint was still under the
influence of his master, Albert, who went so far as to hold that Christ had
specified the chrism and the words, "I sign thee", etc. (In Sent., IV, dist.
vii, a. 2). The opinion of Alexander of Hales, referred to by St. Thomas, was as
follows: the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost by mere imposition of hands; this
rite, which was not properly a sacrament, was continued until the ninth century,
when the Holy Ghost inspired the Fathers of the Council of Meaux in the choice
of the matter and form, and endowed these with sacramental efficacy (Spiritu
Sancto instigante et virtutem sanctificandi præstante), He was led to this
extraordinary view (which he states as merely personal) by the fact that no
mention is made in Holy Scripture either of the chrism or of the words; and as
these were undoubtedly the matter and the form they could only have been
introduced by Divine authority His disciple, St. Bonaventure, agreed in
rejecting the institution by Christ or His Apostles, and in attributing it to
the Holy Ghost; but he set back the time to the age of "the successors of the
Apostles" (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, art. 1). However, like his friendly rival
St. Thomas, he also modified his view in a later work viloquium, p. vi. c. 4)
where he says that Christ instituted all the sacraments, though in different
ways; "some by hinting at them and initiating them [insinuando et initiando],
as confirmation and extreme unction". Scotus seems to have felt the weight of
the authority of the Dominican opinion, for he does not express himself clearly
in favor of the views of his own order. He says that the rite was instituted by
God (Jesus
Christ? the Holy Ghost?); that it was instituted when Christ pronounced the
words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost", or on the day of Pentecost, but this may
refer not to the rite but to the thing signified, viz. the gift of the Holy
Ghost (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1; dist. ii, q. 1). The Fathers of the
Council of Trent, as said above, did not expressly decide the question, but as
they defined that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ, the Dominican
teaching has prevailed. We shall see. however, that this is capable of many
different meanings.
(b) The question of
matter and form
The question of the
institution of the sacrament is intimately bound up with the determination of
the matter and form. All agreed that these consisted of the anointing (including
the act of placing the hand upon the candidate) and the words, "I sign thee", or
"I confirm thee", etc. Were this action and these words of Divine, or of
Apostolic, or of merely ecclesiastical origin? St. Albertus held that both were
ordained by Christ Himself; others that they were the work of the Church; but
the common opinion was that they were of Apostolic origin. St. Thomas was of
opinion that the Apostles actually made use of chrism and the words, Consigno
te, etc., and that they did so by
Christ's command. The
silence of Scripture need not surprise us, he says, "for the Apostles observed
many things in the administration of the sacraments which are not handed down by
the Scriptures" (ST
III:72:3).
(c) The reservation of
the rite to the bishops
In proof of the
reservation of the rite to bishops the Schoolmen appeal to the example of Acts,
viii; and they go on to explain that as the sacrament is a sort of completion of
baptism it is fitting that it should be conferred by "one who has the highest
power [summam potestatem] in the Church"
(St. Thomas, III:72:11).
They were aware, however, that in the primitive Church simple priests sometimes
administered the sacrament. This they accounted for by the fewness of bishops,
and they recognized that the validity of such administration (unlike the case of
Holy orders) is a mere matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. "The pope holds
the fullness of power in the Church, whence he can confer upon certain of the
inferior orders things which belong to the higher orders . . . . And out of the
fullness of this power the blessed pope
Gregory granted that
simple priests conferred this sacrament"
(St. Thomas, III:72:11).
(5) The Council of
Trent
The Council of Trent did
not decide the questions discussed by the Schoolmen. But the definition that
"all the sacraments were instituted by Christ" (Sess. VII, can. i), excluded the
opinion that the Holy Ghost was the author of confirmation. Still, nothing was
said about the mode of institution--whether immediate or mediate, generic or
specific. The post-Tridintine theologians have almost unanimously taught that
Christ Himself was the immediate author of all the sacraments, and so of
confirmation (cf. De Lugo, "De Sacram. in Gen.", disp. vii, sect. 1; Tournely,
"De Sacram. in Gen.", q. v, a. 1). "But the historical studies of the
seventeenth century obliged authors to restrict the action of Christ in the
institution of the sacraments to the determination of the spiritual effect,
leaving the choice of the rite to the Apostles and the Church." (Pourrat, La
théologie sacramentaire, p. 313.) That is to say, in the case of confirmation,
Christ bestowed upon the Apostles the power of giving the Holy Ghost, but He did
not specify the ceremony by which this gift should be conferred; the Apostles
and the Church, acting under Divine guidance, fixed upon the imposition of
hands, the anointing, and the appropriate words. Further information on this
important and difficult question will be found in the article SACRAMENTS.
III. CONFIRMATION IN
THE BRITISH AND IRISH CHURCHES
In his famous
"Confession" (p. clxxxiv) St. Patrick refers to himself as the first to
administer confirmation in Ireland. The term here used (populi consummatio;
cf. St. Cyprian, ut
signaculo dominico consummentur, Ep. lxxiii, no. 9) is rendered by
nocosmad, cosmait (confirmabat, confirmatio) in a very ancient Irish
homily on St. Patrick found in the fourteenth century, "Leabar Breac". In the
same work (II, 550-51) a Latin preface to an ancient Irish chronological tract
says: Debemus scire quo tempore Patriacius sanctus episcopus atque præceptor
maximus Scotorum inchoavit . . . sanctificare et consecrare , , , et consummare,
i.e. "we ought to know at what time Patrick, the holy bishop and greatest
teacher of the Irish, began to come to Ireland . . . to sanctify and ordain and
confirm". From the same "Leabar Breac" Sylvester Malone quotes the following
account of confirmation which exhibits an accurate belief on the part of the
Irish Church: "Confirmation or chrism is the perfection of baptism, not that
they are not distinct and different. Confirmation could not be given in the
absence of baptism; nor do the effects of baptism depend on confirmation, nor
are they lost till death. Just as the natural birth takes place at once so does
the spiritual regeneration in like manner, but it finds, however, its perfection
in confirmation" (Church History of Ireland, Dublin, 1880, I, p. 149). It is in
the light of these venerable texts, which quite probably antedate the year 1000,
that we must interpret the well-known reference of St. Bernard to the temporary
disuse of confirmation in Ireland (Vita Malachiæ), c. iv, in Acta SS., Nov., 1I,
145). He relates that St. Malachy (b. about 1095) introduced the practices of
the Holy Roman Church into all the churches of Ireland, and mentions especially
"the most wholesome usage of confession, the sacrament of confirmation and the
contract of marriage, all of which were either unknown or neglected". These
Malachy restored (de novo instituit). The Welsh laws of Hywel Dda suppose
for children of seven years and upwards a religious ceremony of laying on of
hands that can hardly be anything else than confirmation. Moreover, the Welsh
term for this sacrament, Bedydd Esgob, i.e. bishop's baptism, implies
that it was always performed by a bishop and was a complement (consummatio)
of baptism. Gerald Barry notes that the whole people of Wales were more eager
than any other nation to obtain episcopal confirmation and the chrism by which
the Spirit was given.
The practice in England
has already been illustrated by facts from the life of St. Cuthbert. One of the
oldest ordines, or prescriptions for administering the sacrament, is
found in the Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York (d. 766). The rite is
practically the same as that used at present; the form, however, is: "receive
the sign of the holy cross
with the chrism of salvation in
Christ Jesus unto life
everlasting." Among the rubrics are: modo ligandi sunt, i.e. the head of
the person confirmed is to be bound with a fillet; and modo communicandi sunt
de sacrificio, i.e. they are to receive Holy Communion (Martène). It was
especially during the thirteenth century that vigorous measures were taken to
secure the proper administration of the sacrament. In general, the councils and
synods direct the priests to admonish the people regarding the confirmation of
their children. The age limit, however, varies considerably. Thus the Synod of
Worcester (1240) decreed that parents who neglected to have their child
confirmed within a year after birth should be forbidden to enter the church. The
Synod of Exeter (1287) enacted that children should be confirmed within three
years from birth, otherwise the parents were to fast on bread and water until
they complied with the law. At the Synod of Durham (12177? Cf. Wilkins, Ioc.
cit. below) the time was extended to the seventh year. Other statutes were: that
no one should be admitted to Holy Communion who had not been confirmed (Council
of Lambeth, 1281); that neither father nor mother nor stepparent should act as
sponsor (London, 1200); that children to be confirmed must bring "fillets or
bands of sufficient length and width", and that they must be brought to the
church the third day after confirmation to have their foreheads washed by the
priest out of reverence for the holy chrism (Oxford, 1222); that a male sponsor
should stand for the boys and a female sponsor for the girls (Provincial Synod
of Scotland, 1225); that adults must confess before being confirmed
(Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury, about 1236). Several of the
above-named synods emphasize the fact that confirmation produces spiritual
cognation and that the sacrament cannot be received more than once. The
legislation of the Synod of Exeter is especially full and detailed (see Wilkins,
Concilia Magnæ Brittanniæ et Hiberniæ, London, 1734). Among the decrees issued
in Ireland after the Reformation may be cited: no one other than a bishop should
administer confirmation; the
Holy See had not
delegated this episcopal function to any one (Synod of Armagh, 1614); the
faithful should be taught that confirmation cannot be reiterated and that its
reception should be preceded by sacramental confession (Synod of Tuam, 1632).
IV. IN THE AMERICAN
COLONIES
Previous to the
establishment of the hierarchy, many Catholics in North America died without
having received confirmation. In some portions of what is now the United States
the sacrament was administered by bishops from the neighboring French and
Spanish possessions; in others, by missionary priests with delegation from the
Holy See. Bishop
Cabezas de Altimirano of Santiago de Cuba, on his visitation of Florida,
confirmed (25 March, 1606) a large number, probably the first administration of
the sacrament in the United States territory. In 1655, Don Diego de Rebolledo,
Governor of Florida, urged the King of Spain to ask the pope to make St.
Augustine an episcopal see, or to make Florida a vicariate Apostolic so that
there might be a local superior and that the faithful might receive the
Sacrament of Confirmation; but nothing came of the petition. Bishop Calderon of
Santiago visited Florida in 1647 and confirmed 13,152 persons, including Indians
and whites. Other instances are the visitations of Bishop de Velasco (1735-6)
and Bishop Morel (1763). Subsequently, Dr. Peter Camps, missionary Apostolic,
received from Rome special faculties for confirmation. In New Mexico, during the
seventeenth century, the custos of the Franciscans confirmed by delegation from
Leo X and Adrian VI. In 1760, Bishop Tamaron of Durango visited the missions of
New Mexico and confirmed 11,271 persons. Bishop Tejada of Guadalajara
administered (1759) confirmation at San Fernando, now San Antonio, Texas, and
Bishop de Pontbriand at Ft. Presentation (Ogdensburg, N.Y.) in 1752. The need of
a bishop to administer the sacrament in Maryland and Pennsylvania was urged by
Bishop Challoner in a report to the Propaganda, 2 Aug., 1763. Writing to his
agent at Rome, Rev. Dr. Stonor, 12 Sept., 1766, he says: "there be so many
thousands there that live and die without Confirmation"; and in another letter,
4 June, 1771: "It is a lamentable thing that such a multitude have to live and
die always deprived of the Sacrament of Confirmation." Cardinal Castelli wrote,
7 Sept., 1771, to Bishop Briand of Quebec asking him to supply the need of the
Catholics in Maryland and Pennsylvania. In 1783 the clergy petitioned Rome for
the appointment of a superior with the necessary faculties "that our faithful
living in many dangers, may be no longer deprived of the Sacrament of
Confirmation . . . . " On 6 June, 1784,
Pius VI appointed Rev.
John Carroll as superior of the mission and empowered him to administer
confirmation (Shea, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, New York, 1888; cf.
Hughes in Am. Eccl. Review, XXVIII, 23).
V. CONFIRMATION AMONG
NON-CATHOLICS
The
Protestant Reformers,
influenced by their rejection of all that could not be clearly proved from
Scripture and by their doctrine of justification by faith only, refused to admit
that confirmation was a sacrament (Luther, De Capt. Babyl., VII, p. 501).
According to the Confession of Augsburg, it was instituted by the Church, and it
has not the promise of the
grace of God. Melanchthon (Loci Comm., p. 48) taught that it was a vain
ceremony, and was formerly nothing but a catechism in which those who were
approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church; and
that the minister was not a bishop only, but any priest whatsoever (Lib. Ref. ad
Colonien.). These four points were condemned by the Council of Trent (supra I;
cf. A. Theiner, Acta Genuina SS. OEcum. Conc. Trid., I, p. 383 sqq.).
Nevertheless the Lutheran
Churches retain some sort of confirmation to the present day. It consists of
the examination of the candidate in
Christian doctrine by
the pastors or members of the consistory, and the renewal by the candidate of
the profession of faith made for him at the time of his baptism by his
godparents. How the pastors properly ordained can alone be said to "give"
confirmation does not appear. The
Anglican Church holds
that "Confirmation is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel . . . for
it has not the like nature of sacraments [sacramentorum eandem rationem]
with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for it has not any visible sign or ceremony
ordained of God" (Art.
xxv). But, like the
Lutheran Churches, it retains "the Confirmation of children, by examining
them of their knowledge in their articles of faith and joining thereto the
prayers of the Church for them" (Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, p.
300). The rite of confirmation has undergone various changes in the different
prayer books (see BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER). From these it can be seen how the
Anglican Church has
varied between the complete rejection of the Catholic doctrine and practice, and
a near approach to these. Testimonies could easily be quoted for either of these
opinions. The wording of Art. xxv left a loophole which the Ritualistic party
has made good use of. Even some Catholics, as stated above, have admitted that
confirmation "has not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of
God"; the imposition of
hands, the anointing, and the words used being all of them "ordained of" the
Apostles of the Church.
|
