Sacrament of the CONFIRMATION

How important is this sacrament

The Church has always taught that the Sacrament of Confirmation was not necessary for salvation. However, Confirmation was instituted for the battles in this life, and is required by precept because Our Lord instituted it as a means of grace. All are obliged, therefore, to receive it, if they are able to do so.

The Council of Laodicea in 370 stated that 'it behooves those who are illuminated to be anointed after Baptism with the supercelestial chrism, and to be made partakers of Christ.’ St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church, insists that the obligation to receive it is a serious one. Benedict XIV taught that the obligation bound under pain of sin, if no grave inconvenience was involved in its reception. Clement XIV approved a decree in 1774 which stated that 'this Sacrament cannot be refused or neglected without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, if there be an opportune occasion of receiving it.’

The minister of the sacrament

Some historians have claimed that Confirmation grew out of Baptism – citing the fact that in the Eastern church both are given at the same time as evidence. Let us listen then to one of the most important authorities of the Eastern Church, St. John Chrysostom. He tells us that 'Philip was one of the seven, the second [in rank] after Stephen. Hence, when he baptized, he did not communicate to the neophytes the Holy Ghost, because he had not the power to do so. This gift was peculiar to the twelve, a prerogative of the Apostles; whence we see [even now] that the bishops and none other do this.’

In the Western Church, the ordinary (normal) minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the bishop. Since Pius XII’s decree Spiritum Sancti Munera of September 14, 1946, it has been common law in the Latin Church that all pastors or their equivalents may confer this Sacrament on their subjects in danger of death. In the Eastern Churches today, the ordinary minister of the Sacrament is the parish priest, and the Sacrament is frequently administered immediately after Baptism. It goes without saying that the Priest or Bishop must have been validly ordained.

The matter of the sacrament

Chrism blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday is considered to be the 'remote matter’ of the Sacrament. The Church has always insisted that only olive oil and balm may be used for this purpose. The post-Conciliar Church now allows for the use of any 'vegetable oil.’1 The reader is referred to the Chapter on Extreme Unction for a fuller discussion of the nature of this oil, and the blessing required to 'sanctify’ it. (The need for balsam or balm – a fragrant oleoresin exuded from certain plants and trees – to be added to the olive oil was debated by theologians over the centuries, and was considered until 1971 as 'of precept’ but not essential for validity.)

There is some difference of opinion about what is called the 'proximate matter.’ Some theologians hold that it lies in the imposition of hands, while others maintain that it lies in the anointing with chrism. Still others hold that both are required, and some that either is sufficient.

Because of the differences of opinion most theologians now hold that both the imposition of hands and the anointing with chrism are necessary. Indeed, in the traditional rite, the bishop performs both actions simultaneously with an individual imposition of hands for each confirmand as the anointing is being done. A prior imposition of hands takes place at the beginning of the ceremony when the bishop extends his hands over the confirmands as a group. In the Eastern Rites, only the second imposition of hands is used, and it is this one which pertains to the 'proximate matter.’

In the new post-Conciliar rite established by Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Divinae consortium naturae (15 August, 1971), and based on his personal reply to a query (DOL 306), only the initial blessing over all the confirmands has been retained. The individual laying-on of hands at the time of the actual anointing has been suppressed. He stated that anointing with chrism 'sufficiently expresses the laying on of hands.’

This decision is interesting in view of the statement by Father Pourrat that 'In the Apostolic Age, the matter of Confirmation was the imposition of hands; after the second century, it was, besides, the anointing with holy chrism.’2

This constitutes a clear-cut departure from both Scriptural and Patristic custom.

The form of the sacrament

During the course of history different forms for the Sacrament of Confirmation have been used – they have presumably all been substantially (i.e. their meaning) similar. The current form has been in use since at least the 12th Century and was specified as such by both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventura, though St. Albert the Great and Alexander of Hales specified slightly different but substantially similar ones. The Council of Florence and the Council of Trent both specified that the formula was 'I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (Signo te signo Crucis, et confirmo te Chrismate salutis. In nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.)’

The form used in the Eastern Churches differs slightly – 'The sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ (The Latin for this would be signaculum doni spiritus Sancti.) This probably dates back to the First Council of Constantinople (381), and certainly dates back to the Trullan Council of 692. (This is not to say that it was not in use prior to that time, but only that we can historically trace its use back to these dates.)

Now the essential words must clearly be found in what the Western and Eastern formulas have in common. Father Joseph Pohle discusses this in his pre-Vatican II text The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise.3 'Which particular words constitute the substance of the formula is a purely theoretical question that can easily be decided if we admit the Greek formula4 to be essentially equivalent to the longer Latin one… Manifestly, the formula of Confirmation must express two concepts, viz; (1) the act of signing or sealing (signo te) and (2), the grace of the Holy Ghost (confirmo te). Neither the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity nor the words signo crucis and chrismate salutis are essential. So far as we know, all the forms ever used embodied these two leading ideas, at least implicitly.’ (The blow on the cheek (alapa) did not become customary until the twelfth century. It was apparently devised in imitation of the blow by which knighthood was conferred in the Middle Ages and obviously complemented the concept that the recipient of the Sacrament was now a soldier of Christ.)

The post-conciliar changes in the form

When we come to the new rite of Confirmation as established by Paul VI’s Apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae (15 August, 1971), we find the following statement: 'The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by laying on of the hand and through the words accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti.”Officially translated as ’Be Sealed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost.’

Paul VI tells us that he has adopted this formula from the Byzantine Rite, stating, 'We therefore adopt this formula, rendering it almost word for word… by which the Gift of the Holy Spirit Himself is expressed and the outpouring of the Spirit which took place on the day of Pentecost is recalled. He is of course correct, for the Greek form, as noted above, is signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti. Why however did he add Accipe which changes the meaning of the words from the active sense of something the Bishop imposes on the recipient, to the passive request for him to accept what is offered?

The answer is that by the use of this one word, the recipient is merely asked to receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and this is a purely subjective act on the recipient’s part. By doing this Paul VI introduced a formula which is much more acceptable to the Protestants who would be horrified at the idea that an indelible character is imprinted ex opere operato on the recipient.

There is yet a further problem with Paul VI’s Divinae consortium naturae. In it he states that the rite of Confirmation 'recalls’ what took place on Pentecost. This is a faulty notion of a Sacrament. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are bestowed once again through the rites of the Church, and not simply 'recalled.’

Why the changes

Paul VI tells us that the reason for the revision 'which concurs with the very essence of the rite of confirmation’ was in order that 'the intimate connection of this Sacrament with the whole Christian initiation may stand out more clearly.’ And the result, he assures us is that 'the rite and words of this Sacrament express more clearly the holy things they signify and the Christian people, as far as possible, are able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” It is for the reader to judge whether this end has been achieved.

Conclusion

Once again we have a Sacrament whose form and matter have been significantly tampered with. While one cannot officially state that it has been invalidated – indeed, only the teaching magisterium of the Church could ever come to such a conclusion and obligate us to accept it as being 'of faith.’ However, one can certainly state that with the change in the remote matter of olive oil to any vegetable oil, with the suppression of the laying on of hands and the statement that the signing of the forehead with the cross suffices for this, and with the subjective change in the form of the Sacrament, an element of doubt has been raised. We are no longer supplied with the necessary medium certum.

FOOTNOTES