Confirmation, Chapter I §2–3: Matter and Form; Sacramental Effects

§2. Matter and Form

As there is nothing dogmatically defined with regard to this phase of our subject, we must rely entirely on theological arguments. Catholic writers are at variance as to what constitutes the essential matter of Confirmation.

1. The Materia Proxima

The reason why we do not begin with an attempt to determine the materia remota of Confirmation is this: If it were true, as some contend, that the essential matter of this Sacrament consists in the imposition of hands, there would be no materia remota.

Concerning the materia proxima there are four different theories.

a) Most of the older canonists and theologians¹ regard the impositio manuum (χειροθεσία) as the sole matter of Confirmation.

Their chief argument is that Holy Scripture² always describes Confirmation as a laying-on of hands, never as an unction (chrismatio). However, Staerk,³ basing his conclusions on 2 Cor. I, 21 sq., contends that the Apostolic formula of Confirmation ran something like this: “Chrismate sancto, complemento Spiritus Sancti signatur servus Christi.” Dölger thinks that possibly “the Apostles conferred Confirmation by that imposition of hands, and that the anointment with chrism, as the external sign, was introduced at their behest only towards the close of the Apostolic age.”⁴ The assertion that Tertullian, Cyprian, and Jerome knew nothing of the chrismatio, is rendered doubtful by the express testimony of so many other Patristic writers.

b) St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Gregory of Valentia, Estius, Maldonatus, Nepefny, and a few other theologians contend that the anointing with chrism (chrismatio) is the sole matter of Confirmation.

They base their argument on the Decretum pro Armenis, which says: “The second Sacrament is Confirmation, of which the matter is chrism, made of oil … and balsam … blessed by the bishop.”⁵ This is also the teaching of the Roman Catechism: “That such [i.e. a mixture of oil and balsam] is the matter of this Sacrament, holy Church and her councils have always taught, and the same has been handed down to us by St. Denis and by many other Fathers of the gravest authority, particularly by Pope Fabian, who testifies that the Apostles received the composition of chrism from the Lord and transmitted it to us.”⁶ This explanation is, however, open to serious objections. The St. Denis who is quoted as a witness, is none other than the Pseudo-Areopagite, who was not a “disciple of the Apostles,” as the Schoolmen believed, but a Christian pupil of the famous neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus, who flourished in the latter part of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century. The dictum attributed to Pope Fabian (236-250) is spurious.

The Tridentine Council evaded the theological point here at issue and contented itself with defending the use of chrism against the attacks of the Protestant reformers. It declared: “If any one saith that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of Confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.”⁷ This is not tantamount to a dogmatic definition that the sacred chrism is an essential element of Confirmation; for the canon quoted would remain valid even if the anointment with sacred chrism were merely a symbolic ceremony instead of a true sacramental rite. The chrismatio itself was most fully developed in the Orient, where the laying-on of hands gradually fell into entire desuetude, whereas the Latin Church continued to emphasize the importance of both rites. Professor Nepefny’s contention⁸ that the “ancient Greeks” never laid on hands in conferring the Sacrament of Confirmation, is disproved by the Egyptian Church Ordinance,⁹ the newly discovered Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ,¹⁰ and the Arabic Canones Hippolyti,¹¹ three documents which, according to Funk’s exhaustive researches,¹² all grew out of the pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions. The Egyptian Church Ordinance and the Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, both productions of the fifth century, speak of a twofold laying-on of hands, one with and the other without the chrismatio.¹³

c) A third group of theologians, combining the two opinions just reviewed, hold that the imposition of hands and anointment with chrism conjointly constitute the matter of Confirmation. This opinion has a solid basis in ecclesiastical Tradition.

Since, however, the Latin rite of Confirmation comprises two distinct impositions of the hands — the extension of them (χειροτονία) over all the candidates with which the ceremony begins, and the individual laying-on of hands (χειροθεσία) which takes place in the act of anointing — most of the representatives of this group¹⁴ regard the latter rite as the essential matter of Confirmation. The individual laying-on of hands, they say, and the anointing of the forehead with chrism, together constitute but one rite. This opinion is confirmed by the practice of the Greek Church, which employs but one impositio manuum, namely, that which takes place simultaneously with the anointment. The Oriental practice was expressly approved by Benedict XIV in his Encyclical “Ex quo primum” (March 1, 1756). He says: “No one is permitted to assert that the Greek Church has not the Sacrament of Confirmation. For if any one would hold this opinion, he would be manifestly contradicted by the ancient Oriental discipline.”¹⁵ His declaration gains weight from the common consent of present-day Latin theologians that the extensio manuum is not essential to the Sacrament, and from the decision of the Propaganda (1840) that Confirmation must not be repeated if that part of the ceremony has been accidentally omitted.

d) According to Morinus, Tapper, and some others, either the imposition of hands or the anointing suffices to make the Sacrament valid. These writers exemplify their theory by reference to the Holy Eucharist, which, they say, may be validly received under either species or under both. As no solid argument can be adduced in support of this view, we may disregard it.

Critical Estimate of the Four Opinions. Practically, of course, the minister of Confirmation is bound to proceed according to the Pontificale Romanum. As for the theoretical question here at issue, it can be best decided by adopting the opinion that the imposition of hands and the anointment with chrism both appertain to the essential matter of the Sacrament.

The arguments of the first-mentioned group of authors establish the necessity of the impositio manuum on the basis of Sacred Scripture; those of the second, prove the indispensability of the anointment from the teaching of the Fathers and the practice of the ancient Church; and as the Greek Church knows no other χειροθεσία besides that which in the Latin Church takes place simultaneously with the anointing, it follows that the impositio manuum cum chrismatione coniuncta constitutes the essential matter of the Sacrament. This is the express teaching of Innocent III¹⁶ and it is re-echoed in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palaeologus, read before the Second Council of Lyons (1274).¹⁷ In the light of this teaching we can easily understand why the Fathers often employed the terms confirmatio, unctio, and manus impositio synonymously, and that this diversity of usage argues no divergency in teaching.¹⁸

2. The Materia Remota

If the anointing and the imposition of hands conjointly are the materia proxima of Confirmation, the chrism (chrisma, μύρον) employed in the last-mentioned portion of the rite must manifestly be its materia remota.

a) Chrism is a mixture of olive oil (oleum olivarum) and balsam (balsamum). In the Greek Church it also contains an admixture of odoriferous herbs and a small quantity of wine. The principal ingredient, of course, is the oil, which must be pure oil of olives. When the Armenians were censured by the Council of Tarsus (1177) for substituting oil of sesame, their only excuse was that poverty compelled them to deviate from the traditional practice.¹⁹

b) Must the chrism, in order to be valid matter for Confirmation, necessarily be mixed with balsam, and consecrated by a bishop? Theologians differ on these two points.

α) The Thomists, with the majority, regard the admixture of balsam as essential, for the reason that the Bible, the Fathers, and the Church in her official language call mere olive oil alone not chrisma (μύρον) but oleum (ἔλαιον). Many Scotists and a number of modern theologians²⁰ contend that the balsam is a requisite of licit but not of valid administration. The use of balsam as an ingredient of the sacred chrism cannot be proved before the sixth century.²¹ Earlier writers speak simply of oleum, which Pope Innocent I identifies with chrisma. Optatus of Mileve applies oleum to unconsecrated, and chrisma to consecrated oil, without an admixture of balsam. Innocent III did not venture to declare Confirmation administered with mere olive oil alone as invalid. These and other reasons lead Krull²² to conclude that the use of balsam originated in the sixth century,²³ and if this be true, the necessity of mixing it with the oil can only be de praecepto.

β) Equally undecided is the question whether the sacred chrism must be consecrated by a bishop. Pope Benedict XIV declared it “beyond controversy” that “in the Latin Church the Sacrament of Confirmation is administered with sacred chrism or olive oil mixed with balsam, and blessed by a bishop. …”²⁴ Episcopal consecration of the chrism is regarded as essential by St. Thomas²⁵ and his school, by Suarez,²⁶ and the majority of modern theologians, on the ground that many Fathers²⁷ speak of the “blessed oil of anointment,” and that popes and councils have prescribed that the oil used for Confirmation be previously consecrated by a bishop.²⁸

Whether a priest may be the extraordinary minister of this blessing, and if so, under what conditions, is another open question. Cajetan and Soto hold that the Pope may delegate a priest for this purpose. Eugene IV is said to have granted the privilege of consecrating the sacred chrism to the Latin missionaries in India. The deacon John, who lived in the sixth century,²⁹ holds that in case of necessity bishops can delegate their power in this matter to priests.³⁰ Whether or not these accounts are reliable, one thing is certain: according to all the existing rituals, the sacred chrism may be consecrated by bishops only. In the Orient the privilege is reserved to the Patriarch or Katholikos. Hence we may reasonably conclude that chrism consecrated by a bishop is an indispensable requisite for the validity of Confirmation.

Oswald treats the matter altogether too lightly when he says: “The previous blessing of the elements is probably a non-essential matter in all the Sacraments.”³¹ True, Baptism is valid even if the water is not blessed. But, as Schell remarks, “In the case of Confirmation there is greater need that the element be blessed than in the case of Baptism, because Confirmation truly and properly confers the Holy Ghost. … This explains the exalted rites employed in consecrating the sacred chrism, the reverence with which it is handled, and the express declaration of the Tridentine Council, Sess. VII, De Confirm., can. 2. All this presupposes a special dignity and power, which the Church attributes to the sacred chrism in virtue of the blessing bestowed upon it. It is proper, too, that the element used in the anointing be blessed, since the hands of the confirming minister must be consecrated, which is not the case in Baptism.”³²

3. The Sacramental Form of Confirmation

Because of the uncertainty enveloping the matter of Confirmation, the form, too, is in dispute.

a) Speaking in the abstract, and taking the rite as it is customary today, the form may be, either α) the prayer “Omnipotens sempiterne Deus” pronounced by the bishop at the general imposition of hands; or β) the words spoken by him when he anoints the forehead of each candidate with chrism, viz.: “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.”

Probably since the First Council of Constantinople (381),³³ but surely since the Trullan Council of 692,³⁴ the Eastern Church has employed this formula: “The sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost.”³⁵

Though it is customary in some dioceses to lock the door after the general imposition of hands, it may be assumed with reasonable certainty that the prayer accompanying that ceremony does not enter into the essential form of the Sacrament, since this preliminary imposition itself does not constitute part of the essential matter. Consequently the true form must be sought in the words pronounced at the anointing. This is, in fact, the teaching of the Council of Florence.³⁶ The present formula, “I sign thee with the sign of the cross,” etc., is no older than the twelfth century.³⁷ Before that time others were in use. According to Amalarius of Metz (d. about 857), the Latin Church had no uniform formula of Confirmation in the ninth century. The same may be said of the Oriental churches, with the sole exception of the Greek, which has employed its present formula ever since the sixth century.³⁸

b) Which particular words constitute the substance of the formula is a purely theoretical question that can easily be decided if we admit the Greek formula to be essentially equivalent to the longer Latin one, and bear in mind what was said in the first part of this treatise about the specific determination of matter and form for all the Sacraments by Jesus Christ.³⁹ Manifestly the formula of Confirmation must express two concepts, viz.: (1) the act of signing or sealing (signo te — σφραγίς), and (2) the grace of the Holy Ghost (confirmo te — δωρεᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου). Neither the invocation of the most holy Trinity nor the words signo crucis and chrismate salutis are essential.⁴⁰ So far as we know, all the formulas ever in use embodied these two leading ideas, at least implicitly.⁴¹

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, to serve as a symbolic exhortation to the recipient to follow the example of Christ in suffering patiently⁴² and enduring contumely for His sake.⁴³

§3. Sacramental Effects

Confirmation by its very name signifies the consummation of baptismal grace. The effect it produces is twofold: It increases sanctifying grace and imprints the sacramental character.

1. Increase of Sanctifying Grace

a) Since Confirmation perfects the grace of Baptism, it must be received in the state of sanctifying grace. Hence Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living; it does not produce the state of grace but merely increases it (augmentum gratiae sanctificantis, iustificatio secunda).

The Council of Florence defines: “By Confirmation we receive an increase of grace and are strengthened in the faith.”⁴⁴ This is in conformity with the Patristic teaching that baptized persons become full-fledged Christians (pleni Christiani) through Confirmation; not as if Baptism produced only “half-Christians” (semichristiani), as Calvin mockingly says, but as by growth children develop into complete and full-grown men.

b) The specific grace of Confirmation (gratia sacramentalis) consists in the “power of the Holy Ghost,” by which the recipient is enabled to believe firmly and to profess the faith courageously.

“The effect of this Sacrament,” says the Decretum pro Armenis, “is that in it is given the Holy Ghost for strengthening, as He was given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, namely that the Christian may boldly profess the name of Christ.”⁴⁵ This was indeed the effect produced by the descent of the Paraclete, as our Lord Himself had foretold and promised. Acts I, 8: “You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, … even to the utmost part of the earth.”⁴⁶ Though the Apostles received this power without the Sacrament, the faithful generally can obtain it only through Confirmation. Confirmation imparts the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, particularly fortitude, which in extreme cases enables the Christian soldier to lay down his life for the faith.⁴⁷

As Doctor Schell aptly says: “Confirmation confers and is intended to effect the possession and use of the supernatural state of grace, the courageous practice of faith, hope, and charity through wisdom, understanding, counsel and strength, knowledge, piety, and the fear of God. The ecclesiastical name for all these gifts is power, — power to begin as well as to resist, to break down inordinate self-love, thus enabling man with a free spirit to fear God alone, and to serve Him, proof against sensual pleasure and human respect.”⁴⁸

To effect this sublime purpose, Confirmation bestows a right to all those actual graces which are necessary to enable a man to fight for Christ and to defeat the enemies of his salvation.⁴⁹

In the Apostolic Church, Confirmation often bestowed those extraordinary gifts (gratiae gratis datae) known as charismata, e.g. speaking in divers tongues, prophesying future events, discerning good spirits from evil, etc.⁵⁰ The existence of these gifts may be traced in the writings of the sub-Apostolic Fathers, especially St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus.

The charismata had ceased in the time of St. Chrysostom, for reasons which St. Augustine indicates as follows: “Who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid in order that they may receive the Holy Ghost, should forthwith begin to speak with tongues? … He [the Holy Ghost] was given in former days to be the credentials of a rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the first beginnings of the Church.”⁵¹

2. The Sacramental Character

Like Baptism, Confirmation imprints an indelible mark or character on the soul, and therefore cannot be repeated.

Theologians have not been able to agree on the speculative question how this character differs from the one imprinted by Baptism. Some, laying special emphasis on the fact that Confirmation is “the consummation of Baptism,” argue that the sacramental character bestowed by the one is simply a more perfect development of that imprinted by the other. This opinion is, however, unacceptable because it fails to make sufficient allowance for the independent status of Baptism and for the fact that each Sacrament has its own specific object. The character imprinted by Baptism can undoubtedly exist by itself alone and has no intrinsic need of being complemented by any other. Moreover, its main function is specifically different from that of the character of Confirmation. The one effects spiritual regeneration, while the other causes spiritual growth. Consequently there is a real distinction between the two. This can be made still clearer by applying to both the notion of the fourfold signum, explained above.⁵² Thus, to mention but one, Confirmation qua signum configurativum marks the recipient as a soldier of Christ, whereas Baptism designates him merely as a subject. There is between the two a distinction as real as that between a soldier’s uniform and his coat-of-arms.⁵³