Confirmation, Chapter I §1: Divine Institution

Part III: Confirmation

The Sacrament of Confirmation owes its name to the fact that it was always regarded as a making fast or sure (βεβαίωσις, confirmatio), a perfecting or completing (τέλειωσις, consummatio) in relation to Baptism. In ancient times these two Sacraments were generally administered together.

From its effects Confirmation is known as the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost” (sacramentum Spiritus Sancti) and also as the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum, σφραγίς, from σφραγίζειν, to confirm). It should be noted, however, that in the first two centuries of the Christian era the words σφραγίς and τέλειον were frequently applied to Baptism.

From the external rite Confirmation was formerly also called “the laying-on of hands” (impositio manuum, ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν) or “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, χρίσμα, μύρον). Today these names are no longer in use, but the Sacrament is commonly known as “Confirmatio” in the Latin and τὸ μύρον in the Greek Church.

Confirmation may be defined as a Sacrament in which those already baptized, through the imposition of hands, anointment, and the prayer of the bishop, receive the power of the Holy Ghost, by which they are enabled to believe firmly and to profess the faith boldly. The Council of Trent contented itself with three short canons on the subject,¹ which are appended to those dealing with Baptism. Confirmation both internally and externally bears so close a relation to Baptism that we may safely treat it along the same lines.

Chapter I: Confirmation a True Sacrament

§1. Divine Institution

1. Heretical Perversions vs. the Teaching of the Church

No ancient or medieval sect ever denied the Sacrament of Confirmation.

a) The Novatians underrated its necessity for salvation.² The Albigenses (and possibly the Waldenses) denied its divine institution. The Wiclifites and Hussites entertained wrong notions with regard to the requisites of validity in the minister. But it remained for Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and the rest of the so-called Protestant reformers to reject Confirmation altogether, or at least to regard it as “an idle ceremony,” “a kind of catechism,” “a renewal of the baptismal vow,” and so forth. The worst offender was Calvin, who referred to this sublime rite as “the abortive larva of a sacrament,” “a false promise of the devil,” and in other abusive terms.³ Calvin’s example was followed by Daillé, Basnage, and Antonio de Dominis, apostate archbishop of Spalato (1561-1624).

b) The Council of Trent declares that Confirmation is one of the Seven Sacraments of the Church,⁴ and that it is a true Sacrament, distinct from Baptism. “If any one saith that the Confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper Sacrament, or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church, let him be anathema.”⁵

2. The Argument from Revelation

Since it cannot be shown directly from the Bible when and how Christ instituted Confirmation, we have to fall back upon an indirect argument, which will, however, prove conclusive in the light of ecclesiastical Tradition.

a) Holy Scripture furnishes the following data:

α) Christ promised before His Passion⁶ that those who believed in Him should receive the Holy Ghost. This promise He repeated after the Resurrection. Luke XXIV, 49: “I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay you in the city, till you be endued with power from on high.”⁷ The fulfilment came on Pentecost, when “they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.”⁸ The results were wonderful beyond expectation. Inspired by the Holy Ghost, the disciples spoke in divers tongues, wrought miracles, fearlessly professed their faith in Christ, and suffered martyrdom for His sake.

β) The mission of the Holy Ghost was not limited to the Apostles and disciples. It was intended for all the faithful without exception. Cfr. John VII, 37 sq.: “On the last and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” St. John adds by way of explanation: “Now this he said of the Spirit⁹ which they should receive who believed in him;¹⁰ for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”¹¹

A universal outpouring of the Holy Ghost in the Messianic age had been foreshadowed by the prophets. Cfr. Is. XLIV, 3; LIX, 21; Ez. XI, 19; XXXVI, 25 sq.; XXXIX, 29; Joel II, 28. The pentecostal gift was understood by St. Peter as a grace intended for all, for he says: “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you¹² in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.¹³ For the promise¹⁴ is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.”¹⁵

γ) The only question that remains to be answered is: Was the Holy Ghost to be communicated to the faithful by means of a special outward rite distinct from Baptism? The answer may be gathered from the following Scriptural texts. Acts VIII, 14 sqq.: “When the Apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they 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 as 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.” And when Simon [Magus] saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles, the Holy Ghost was given,¹⁶ he offered them money,¹⁷ etc.

From this passage we may infer: (1) that the Apostles imparted the Holy Ghost by the laying-on of hands, i.e. by means of a sacramental rite; (2) that this rite was distinct from Baptism, the people of Samaria having been previously baptized by Philip; (3) that the power to perform this ceremony was reserved to the Apostles, i.e. bishops, else why should Peter and John, during a time of persecution, have risked their lives to go to Samaria? (4) That the imposition of hands was regarded as a necessary complement of, and consequently as a true Sacrament distinct from, Baptism.¹⁸

The Protestant objection that the imposition of hands had for its sole purpose the conferring of certain extraordinary gifts (charismata), such as speaking with divers tongues, prophesying, etc., is refuted by the fact that those gifts were sometimes bestowed without any external rite¹⁹ and that they neither invariably nor necessarily accompanied Confirmation.²⁰

b) Ecclesiastical Tradition is perfectly clear on this subject. Belief in the divine institution of Confirmation was firmly established in St. Augustine’s time, and hence it will suffice to demonstrate its existence during the preceding period.²¹

α) St. Jerome (d. 420), who was so ardent a champion of the rights of the priesthood, speaks of episcopal Confirmation tours as customary in his time²² and proves their propriety from Scripture and Tradition. “You ask, where is it written? In the Acts of the Apostles. But even if Sacred Scripture supplied no authority [for the custom], the consensus of the whole world would give it the force of a precept.”²³

Pope St. Innocent the First (402-414) issued detailed instructions with regard to the administration of the Sacrament. “As regards the sealing of infants,” he says, “it is clear that it may not lawfully be done by any one but a bishop. For presbyters, though they be priests of the second rank, have not attained to the summit of the pontificate. That this pontifical right belongs to 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 a 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 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.”²⁴

St. Cyprian (d. 258) writes: “The Samaritans had already obtained legitimate and ecclesiastical Baptism, hence it was not fitting that they should be baptized anew; Peter and John merely supplied what was wanting, viz.: 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 of the Church, and by our prayer and the imposition of hands, receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected by the seal of the Lord.”²⁵

At about the same time, Pope St. Cornelius (251-253) refers to Confirmation in his judgment against the notorious Novatian, who, after having been baptized on his sick-bed, “did not receive the other things, nor was he signed with the seal of the Lord by the bishop; and not having received this seal, how could he receive the Holy Ghost?”²⁶

Tertullian was familiar with the rite of Confirmation, for he says in his treatise De Baptismo: “Then, emerging from the laver, we are anointed with a blessed unction. … The unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually. … Then the hand is laid upon us through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Ghost.”²⁷

According to the recent researches of Dölger,²⁸ Confirmation in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian was administered immediately after Baptism. The neophyte was anointed from head to foot, clothed in white, and led before the bishop, who, laying his hand upon him, invoked the Holy Ghost and made the sign of the cross (signaculum) on his forehead.

Pope Sylvester I (d. 335) separated the two anointments, permitting the priest to perform the former and reserving the latter (on the forehead) to the bishop. Tertullian²⁹ protests against a mock confirmation practiced by the votaries of the Mithraic cult, which ceremony, Cumont³⁰ thinks, consisted in branding the candidate with a red-hot iron, possibly accompanied by some sort of unction.

β) In the Greek Church, St. John Chrysostom, who was a contemporary of St. Augustine, writes: “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 coryphaei [bishops] and none other do this.”³¹

St. Basil (d. 379) barely hints at the existence of Confirmation: “We bless the water of Baptism and the oil of unction — by what written authority? Is it not rather in virtue of a secret and hidden tradition?”³²

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) is the great Eastern authority on the subject. In his famous Catecheses Mystagogicae, delivered to the newly baptized Christians in Easter week, he extols Confirmation in such glowing terms that the Lutheran theologian Chemnitz jestingly refers to this Sacrament as “chrisma Cyrillianum.” In the third Catechesis, which is entirely devoted to Confirmation, we read: “To you also, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, was given the chrism, the emblem [antitype] of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost. … Beware of regarding this as a plain and common ointment. For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer common bread, but the body of Christ, so this holy ointment, after the invocation, is no longer plain ointment, nor, so to say, common, but the chrism of Christ, which by the presence of the godhead causes in us the Holy Ghost. This symbolically anoints thy forehead and thy other senses; and the body indeed is anointed with visible ointment (τῷ μύρῳ), but the soul is sanctified by the holy and life-giving Spirit.”³³

It is extremely probable that St. Theophilus of Antioch (d. about 180) had the Sacrament of Confirmation in mind when he wrote: “Assuredly we have received the name of Christians for no other reason than because we were overspread with divine oil.”³⁴

An indirect proof for the existence of this Sacrament in the first half of the second century is furnished by the fact that the practice of the laying-on of hands and the anointing of baptized persons was in vogue among the Gnostics, who must have gotten it from the Catholic Church.³⁵

Speaking generally it may be said that “anointing and the imposition of hands in the Catholic Church did not originate towards the close of the second century, but can be traced by a well-established tradition back to the time of the Apostles.”³⁶

The argument from prescription becomes irrefutable in the light of the teaching and practice of the schismatic Greeks and the ancient sectaries, who, with the sole exception of the Nestorians, recognized Confirmation as a Sacrament.³⁷