Confirmation, Chapters II–IV: Obligation, Minister, and Recipient

Chapter II: The Obligation of Receiving Confirmation

Confirmation is not necessary as a means of salvation, and the precept to receive this Sacrament does not oblige under penalty of mortal sin. Nevertheless, the fact that Confirmation was instituted by Christ is sufficient proof that it must not be lightly neglected.

1. Confirmation Is Not Necessary as a Means of Salvation

If Confirmation were necessary for salvation necessitate medii, like Baptism, an unconfirmed person dying in the state of baptismal innocence could not be saved — which is contrary to the teaching of Trent¹ and to the practice of the Church.

Unconfirmed adults in danger of death are not given the Sacrament of Confirmation, but that of Extreme Unction, for the simple reason that Confirmation was instituted for the battle of life, not for the death struggle. This explains why a dying Christian who has never been confirmed, is not required to have a desire (votum sacramenti) for Confirmation — a sure proof that the Church does not regard Confirmation as a necessary means of salvation.

2. Confirmation Is Necessary Necessitate Praecepti

The fact that this Sacrament was instituted by the Saviour as a means of grace for the saving of souls proves that all men are obliged to receive it, if they are able.

If Confirmation were merely useful but not necessary, necessitate praecepti, why did Christ institute it as the complement and consummation of Baptism for all men? In the early days the faithful were more deeply convinced of the necessity of receiving this Sacrament than many are today. Confirmation used to be administered to children immediately after Baptism, as is still the practice among the Greeks, and numerous conciliary decrees and papal decretals insisted on the obligation of receiving it. Thus the Council of Laodicea (370) ordained: “It behooves those who are illuminated, to be anointed after Baptism with the supercelestial chrism, and to be made partakers of Christ.”²

As to the nature of the obligation, theologians are divided. Some³ regard neglect to receive Confirmation, provided there be no positive contempt, as scarcely even a venial sin. Others⁴ take a more rigorous view. St. Peter Damian (d. 1075) insists that the obligation to receive this Sacrament is a serious one.⁵ Benedict XIV teaches that it binds under pain of grievous sin. Clement XIV, in 1774, approved a decree of the S. Congregation of the Propaganda to the effect that “this Sacrament cannot be refused or neglected without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, if there be an opportune occasion of receiving it.”⁶

These utterances may not constitute a positive ecclesiastical precept, binding under pain of mortal sin; yet it is perhaps not too much to say that Confirmation is indirectly necessary for salvation, and there is a grave obligation to receive it, when possible. Simar justly observes: “The divine institution of this Sacrament is proof sufficient that God wills every member of the Church to receive it if he possibly can (praeceptum implicitum). The love that a Christian must have for his own soul makes it appear a grave duty not to neglect so efficacious a means of grace (necessitas medii indirecta).”⁷ Today when the faith is threatened by so many serious dangers, its courageous profession against growing unbelief becomes a sacred duty, and the faithful have greater need perhaps than ever, since the days of the martyrs, of the grace imparted by the Sacrament of Confirmation.⁸

Chapter III: The Minister of Confirmation

The ordinary ministers of the Sacrament of Confirmation are the bishops. In extraordinary cases, simple priests can administer the Sacrament, though only with special powers from the Pope. We shall demonstrate this in two theses.

Thesis I: The ordinary ministers of Confirmation are the bishops.

This is de fide.

Proof. The schismatic Greeks, since Photius, maintain that simple priests are the ordinary ministers of Confirmation; but the Tridentine Council expressly condemns this proposition.⁹

a) Sacred Scripture records no instance where the Sacrament of Confirmation was conferred by any one but an Apostle.

St. Peter and St. John faced the dangers of a religious persecution to confirm the converts baptized by Philip the deacon in Samaria. At Ephesus, St. Paul imposed his hands on the twelve disciples of John after they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.¹⁰ Evidently, then, the administration of Confirmation was an Apostolic, and therefore episcopal, prerogative. Tradition always so regarded it, as we have previously shown.¹¹

b) A conclusive argument may be drawn from the papal instruction to Bishop Decentius of Eugubium (d. 417), in which Innocent the First distinctly says that the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation is an episcopal prerogative.¹² A remarkable example is furnished by Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604). When he learned that the priests of Sardinia administered Confirmation as though it were a right attached to the sacerdotal office, Gregory, in a letter to the Bishop of Cagliari, condemned and forbade the practice.¹³ This decision created wide-spread dissatisfaction, and Gregory subsequently wrote another letter in which, while recalling “the ancient discipline of the Church” in support of his previous decree, he benevolently acceded to the wishes of the Sardinian people and allowed the clergy to continue to give Confirmation by special permission of the Holy See.¹⁴

c) The ordinary power of administering Confirmation is limited to the bishops, for two reasons. First, being a Sacrament of lesser importance, Confirmation demands no such universal and general prerogatives as Baptism, which is absolutely necessary to all men for salvation. Secondly, being the Sacrament of “the plenitude of the Spirit,” Confirmation requires an administrator who has himself received full power and consecration. To these considerations St. Thomas Aquinas adds a third. “In every work,” he says, “the final completion is reserved to the supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs to the lower craftsman, the higher gives the form, but the highest of all is he to whom pertains the use, which is the end of things made by art. Thus also the letter which is written by the clerk is signed by his employer. Now the faithful of Christ are a divine work, … and this Sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, the final completion of the Sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that by Baptism a man is built up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual letter; whereas by the Sacrament of Confirmation, like a house already built, he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy Ghost, and as a letter already written, is signed with the sign of the cross. Therefore the conferring of this Sacrament is reserved to the bishops, who possess the supreme power in the Church.”¹⁵

The famous Jesuit theologian, Francisco Suarez, compares the bishops to the generals of an army, and says that in this capacity they have the sole right to enlist new recruits for Christ. Only when the general (i.e. the bishop) is prevented, may the commander-in-chief (i.e. the Pope) delegate simple officers (i.e. priests) with the power of conscription.¹⁶

Does the power of administering Confirmation belong to the bishops by divine or merely by ecclesiastical right? This question has never been officially decided and is in debate among theologians. Trombelli tries to show that the episcopal prerogative of Confirmation rests entirely on the Canon Law.¹⁷ But despite the erudition which this learned writer brings to bear on the subject, his argument is by no means conclusive. The Fathers and early councils were plainly convinced that the episcopal prerogative is based on a divine ordinance, and the Council of Trent raised the proposition that bishops only are the ordinary ministers of Confirmation, to the rank of a dogma — which it would hardly have done if the canonical precept were not founded on a divine command.

Thesis II: In extraordinary cases simple priests can administer Confirmation, but only with special powers granted by the Pope.

This proposition may be technically qualified as “sententia certa.”

Proof. Hugh of St. Victor, Durandus, and other Scholastic theologians deny the right of the Supreme Pontiff to grant the special power referred to; but there is now no longer any reason to doubt it. Thomists, Scotists, Bellarmine,¹⁸ Suarez,¹⁹ and De Lugo,²⁰ all regard Confirmation administered by simple priests with papal authority as valid.

Our thesis cannot be demonstrated directly from Sacred Scripture, and we therefore have to rely on Tradition.

a) In the Greek Church simple priests have administered Confirmation since the early days.

Though St. Chrysostom regards Confirmation as a “prerogative²¹ of the coryphaei” (i.e. bishops), he is aware of its administration by ordinary priests. Long before the time of Photius, Confirmation by simple priests had been customary in the East, and the Western Church accepted it as valid. The matter came up for debate in the councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439). At Florence the Oriental practice was vigorously defended by the Bishop of Mytilene. Pope Eugene IV declared in his famous Decretum pro Armenis: “However, we read that sometimes, by a dispensation granted by the Apostolic See for some reasonable and urgent cause, a simple priest administered this Sacrament with chrism consecrated by a bishop.”²² This declaration did not, it is true, justify the Oriental practice; but it showed that the Holy See was aware of its existence and tolerated it. Benedict XIV expressly acknowledged its validity — “because of at least a tacit privilege conceded by the Apostolic See.”²³ This rule still governs the practice of the Roman Church. Confirmation given by schismatic Greek priests is never repeated except in countries or regions from which the Holy See has expressly withdrawn the privilege, e.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, Corsica, and the Maronite districts about the Lebanon.²⁴

b) In the Latin Church Confirmation, as a rule, has always been administered by bishops, and only in exceptional cases by priests.

This practice, which is far more in conformity with the dogmatic teaching defined at Trent, gained the upper hand in the West after the thirteenth century, when Baptism and Confirmation gradually became separated by constantly lengthening intervals of time. The administration of Confirmation by priests was and is comparatively rare, but cases have occurred in every century since the time of Gregory the Great, though always with express papal authorization and with chrism consecrated by bishops. Since the Council of Trent the Holy See has at various times granted the right to administer Confirmation to Jesuit missionaries, to the Custodian of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, the Provost of St. Hedwig’s Church in Berlin, and other priests.²⁵

c) It is not easy to justify this exceptional practice in view of the fact that the validity of Confirmation has nothing to do with the power of jurisdiction, but depends entirely on the character of ordination.

A deacon, for instance, could not validly administer this Sacrament even with papal permission, whilst, on the other hand, a heretical, schismatic, suspended, or excommunicated bishop can do so even against the express command of the Pope. How, then, is it possible for a simple priest to confirm validly, if the papal permit does not supply the lack of episcopal consecration?

Various attempts have been made to overcome this difficulty.

Some theologians have assumed that the papal delegation is not a mere extrinsic permission but implies an intrinsic perfectioning of the character of ordination by which the delegated priest receives the episcopal character.²⁶ Others hold with Suarez²⁷ that the papal authorization merely gives to the delegated priest a higher extrinsic dignity which, together with his sacerdotal character, suffices to enable him to administer the Sacrament validly. Both hypotheses are unsatisfactory. A simpler and more effective solution is that devised by Gregory of Valentia.²⁸ It was the will of Christ, he says, that both bishops and priests should be empowered to administer Confirmation, the former as ordinary ministers of the Sacrament by virtue of the episcopal consecration, the latter as its extraordinary ministers by virtue of the priesthood, leaving it to the Pope to determine the manner of exercising this latent power.²⁹

Chapter IV: The Recipient of Confirmation

To be validly confirmed one must have been previously baptized; to receive the Sacrament worthily, one must be in the state of grace and, if an adult, have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the faith.

1. The Recipient Must Have Been Baptized

Since the right to receive the other Sacraments is conferred neither by the Baptism of desire nor by the Baptism of blood, Baptism by water is a necessary requisite of valid Confirmation. Cornelius, the centurion, who received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, received only the grace of Confirmation, not the Sacrament, nor the character which it imprints. According to indications contained in the Acts of the Apostles, and the constant teaching and practice of the Church, every baptized person, whether male or female, young or old, well or ill, is a fit subject for Confirmation.³⁰

Regarding children, in particular, it is just as certain that they can be validly confirmed as that they can be validly baptized. The Greek Church still adheres to the ancient practice of confirming infants immediately after Baptism. The Latin Church seems to have pretty generally followed the same rule up to the thirteenth century. At the present time the only difference between the two is that while in the Greek Church it is the priests who confirm, in the Latin Church this Sacrament is administered by the bishops. A Council held at Cologne, A.D. 1280, decreed that Confirmation should be deferred until the years of discretion. The Roman Catechism declares that the administration of this Sacrament is inexpedient until children have attained the use of reason (which is between the ages of seven and twelve), because “Confirmation has not been instituted as necessary to salvation, but that by virtue thereof we might be found very well armed and prepared, when called upon to fight for the faith of Christ.”³¹ Nevertheless, the Church has never made a law, nor is there any explicit custom sanctioned by antiquity, which forbids the confirming of infants. On the contrary, bishops are free to confirm little children, if they so please, as is evident from the Pontificale Romanum, which says: “Infants should be held by their sponsors on the right arm before the bishop who wishes to confirm them.”³² Bishops are generally guided in this matter by the custom of the country.

2. The Recipient Must Not Have Been Confirmed Before

It is of faith³³ that Confirmation imprints an indelible mark (character indelebilis) on the soul, and therefore can not be repeated. To reconfirm a person would be as great a crime as to rebaptize him.

St. Cyprian’s view that Confirmation administered by a heretical minister is invalid, and may therefore be repeated, was based on his erroneous belief (later condemned by the Church in connection with the Donatist schism) that a Sacrament, in order to be valid, must be administered by one who is a true believer and in the state of sanctifying grace. The attitude of Pope Stephen the First is uncertain. Though he condemned rebaptism, he seems to have countenanced reconfirmation.³⁴ Aside from a few such uncertain cases, the Church can be shown to have constantly held the belief that Confirmation by a heretical minister is valid. The “laying-on of hands” of which we read in the writings of the Fathers and the acts of councils in connection with the return of heretics to the Church, was not the Sacrament of Confirmation, but something we should now call a “sacramental” — a ceremony of reconciliation, which was sometimes accompanied by an anointment. “The laying-on of hands in reconciliation,” says St. Augustine, “is not, like Baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?”³⁵

In order to avoid misunderstanding when reading the ancient Fathers and conciliary decrees, it is necessary in each instance to ascertain from the context what is meant by the phrase “laying-on of hands.” There was a threefold laying-on of hands in the primitive Church, to wit: (1) the manus impositio confirmatoria, i.e. Confirmation, which is a true Sacrament; (2) the manus impositio ordinatoria, i.e. ordination, which is also a true Sacrament; and (3) the manus impositio reconciliatoria, i.e. the ceremony of readmitting heretics to the Church, which was no Sacrament at all, but merely what is now called a sacramental.³⁶

3. The Recipient Must Be Properly Prepared

To be duly prepared for Confirmation, the candidate must first of all be in the state of sanctifying grace, because Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living.³⁷

In addition there is required a knowledge of the rudiments of the faith, more particularly of the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Seven Sacraments, especially of the Church’s teaching in regard to Confirmation itself. To make sure that the would-be recipients possess this knowledge, the bishop usually subjects them to an examination. The Church also insists on the previous reception of the Sacrament of Penance and admonishes the candidates for Confirmation to prepare themselves for the reception of the Holy Ghost by pious prayer and an ardent desire,³⁸ and, if possible, to receive the Sacrament fasting.³⁹

Readings: St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 72, art. 1-12. — Billuart, De Confirmatione (ed. Lequette, Vol. VI, pp. 345 sqq.). — Bellarmine, De Sacramento Confirmationis, c. 1-27 (ed. Fevre, Vol. III, pp. 588 sqq., Paris 1870). Other literature see under Baptism, above.

Monographs: I. A. Orsi, O.P., De Chrismate Confirmatorio, Rome 1733; M. Gerbert, O.S.B., De Sacramentis, Praesertim Confirmatione, S. Blasien 1764; Jos. Bertieri, De Sacramentis in Genere et de Baptismo et Confirmatione, Vienna 1774; Vitasse, De Sacramento Confirmationis Libri VIII (in Migne’s Theologiae Cursus Completus, Vol. XXI, pp. 546 sqq.); Fr. Brenner, Geschichtliche Darstellung der Verrichtung und Ausspendung der Firmung, Bamberg 1820; Welz, Das Sakrament der Firmung, Breslau 1847; B. Nepefny, Die Firmung, Passau 1869; G. Bickell, “Das Sakrament der Firmung bei den Nestorianern,” in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1877, pp. 85 sqq.; L. Janssens, O.S.B., La Confirmation, Exposé Dogmatique, Historique et Liturgique, Lille 1888; M. Heimbucher, Die heilige Firmung, das Sakrament des Hl. Geistes, Augsburg 1889; M. Meschler, S.J., Die Gaben des hl. Pfingstfestes, 5th ed., Freiburg 1905; A. F. Wirgman, The Doctrine of Confirmation, London 1902; Fr. Dölger, Das Sakrament der Firmung, Vienna 1906.

T. B. Scannell, art. “Confirmation,” in Vol. IV of the Catholic Encyclopedia. — F. H. Chase (Anglican), Confirmation in the Apostolic Age, London 1909. — A. Devine, C.P., The Sacraments Explained, pp. 158 sqq., 3rd ed., London 1905. — W. Humphrey, S.J., The One Mediator, pp. 99 sqq., London 1890. — J. R. Gasquet, “The Early History of Baptism and Confirmation,” in the Dublin Review, 1895, pp. 116 sqq. — L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, pp. 292 sqq., London 1903. — P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, passim, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1914. — J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 1910, Vol. II, 1914. — M. O’Dwyer, Confirmation: A Study in the Development of Sacramental Theology, Dublin 1915. — B. J. Otten, S.J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 1917, pp. 42, 52, 167, 178, 340 sq., 342, 347, 350, 472; Vol. II (1918), pp. 305 sqq.