Article II: On the Constitutive Parts of Confirmation

S. Th. III, q. 72, a. 2, 3, 4, and 9.

179. State of the question. - There was great uncertainty and diversity of opinions concerning the constitutive parts, or concerning the matter and form, of Confirmation. In the Scriptures the apostles are said to have conferred the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands (Acts VIII, 17; XIX, 6), without any mention being made of some anointing, or even without the utterance of the words of the form being clearly indicated. But now, after a certain imposition of hands has first been made in general upon all to be confirmed at the same time - which ceremony is even omitted in certain Churches - the sacrament is conferred upon each one by anointing of chrism made on the forehead: and since this is done by the hand, in this respect it could be called a certain special imposition of the hand.

Hence they ask which elements in Confirmation were determined by Christ Himself and consequently are immutable, and which were determined by the Church; - likewise, what now is the matter and form of the sacrament, or even what it may have been at various times.

180. Diverse opinions. - To solve the aforesaid questions a manifold opinion has been pronounced:

1. The first, which Aureolus, Sirmond, and Ste-Beuve hold, places the essentials of the sacrament in the sole imposition of hands toward all who are to be confirmed and the corresponding prayer. But this is certainly false, both because it contradicts the Council of Florence, decree for the Armenians, and all rituals which place the matter in anointing, and because S.C.P.F. declared, August 6, 1840, that Confirmation in which that general imposition of hands had been omitted was not to be repeated, and because this is lacking among the Greeks. Moreover it does not combine well with can. 2 of the Council of Trent, sess. 7, on Confirmation: "If anyone says that those who attribute some power to the sacred chrism of Confirmation are injurious to the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema."

2. The second is that of Maldonatus and Sylvius, who place only anointing as the matter of the sacrament, which alone is in use among the Greeks. But in the Scriptures imposition of hands is commemorated, and tradition has always retained mention of imposition of the hand. Thus Innocent III, in 1204: "Through chrismation of the forehead there is designated the imposition of the hand which by another name is called Confirmation"; and the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in the Second Council of Lyons: "The sacrament of Confirmation, which bishops confer by imposition of hands by chrismating the reborn"; most recently the Code of Law, can. 780: "The sacrament of Confirmation must be conferred by imposition of the hand with anointing of chrism on the forehead and by the words prescribed in the pontifical books approved by the Church." Whence it seems necessary to say that not chrismation alone suffices, but that at least the concomitant imposition of the hand is required, insofar as chrismation must be done not by means of an instrument, but immediately with the contact of the hand applied.

3. The third requires both impositions and anointing: thus Tournely, Habert, Gotti, Concina. But it is false that the first imposition is required, as is established from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Ex quo primum, March 1, 1756, declaring the first imposition to be a mere ceremony and Confirmation to be conferred validly by the Greeks who omit it; likewise from the decree of the Holy Office, April 17, 1872 and March 22, 1892.

4. The fourth, which is of many, among whom are St. Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and Billuart, says that the matter has always been in chrismation with the concomitant imposition of the hand. But mention of an anointing distinct from the anointing used in Baptism and proper to Confirmation occurs nowhere in the primitive Church; and the Apostles themselves are not said to have used anything except imposition of hands; indeed, it does not seem that they had so great an abundance of oil for anointing the crowds. But if it is said that the apostles, from a special privilege, could confer the sacrament by imposition of hands alone, or that they sometimes did this by a miracle, but otherwise used anointing when they communicated grace alone without gifts appearing outwardly, these are conjectures without sufficient foundation.

5. The fifth, which Ruard Tapper, Morinus, Estius, and Mayer held, says that both imposition of hands and chrismation suffice. This opinion, insofar as it would affirm that even today either matter suffices and that the bishop can choose between each rite, is certainly false, as is established from the declaration of Benedict XIV. But if it affirms that for the diversity of times and places there has been a diverse matter according to the diverse determination of the Church, it is probable, but coincides with the following opinion.

6. Finally, the sixth holds that Confirmation was originally conferred by imposition of hands, but now is conferred by anointing of chrism made with the hand imposed. Namely, Christ did not altogether determine the sacramental sign, but left the ultimate determination to the Church, which for diverse times and places could determine it otherwise. In fact, early history testifies to the imposition of hands alone; at the end of the second century there was added, as a secondary rite, consignation on the forehead, without anointing, which at least in the West did not obtain before the fourth century. In the fourth century, on account of the introduced practice of separating Confirmation from Baptism, the anointing of chrism or consignation with chrism, to which a proper form was added, prevailed. But in the course of the centuries it gradually happened, namely by custom approved by the Church, that the anointing with the hand imposed prevailed and was considered as the essential rite, while on the contrary the general imposition of the hand, which originally was the essential rite, became a mere accidental ceremony. Thus several moderns, such as Billot, Tanquerey, Galtier, De Smet, and Hugon; and indeed it is better said in this way, with the historical documents considered, and what the Council of Florence already hints is verified, saying: "In place of that imposition of the hand [of the apostles], Confirmation is given in the Church."

181. The remote matter is sacred chrism, i.e. oil of olives mixed with balsam and consecrated by a special blessing by a Bishop. Thus it is clear from the Rituals and from the decrees of Clement VI, Eugene IV in the Council of Florence, Clement VIII, and Benedict XIV.

It is said: 1. Oil of olives, which is altogether required for the validity of the sacrament, for:

"It is properly called oil, and is especially in use where it can be had; but any other liquid is named oil from likeness to this; nor is it in common use, except as a supplement among those to whom oil of olives is lacking." Thus St. Thomas, a. 2, ad 3. Whence the sacrament would be invalid if it were made from petroleum, oil of nuts, or oil of almonds.

Oil signifies both the brightness of conscience, as the Council of Florence says, decree for the Armenians, and the fullness of the Holy Spirit unto spiritual strength, as St. Thomas says, a. 2, just as wrestlers, from an anointing of oil on the body, gave agility to the body and strength for combat.

2. Mixed with balsam, as was already done from ancient times, and it is more probably required for validity.

But balsam of any region suffices, provided it be in such quantity that it gives its odor. Among the Greeks many other aromatics are accustomed to be added, but this is not required for validity.

Balsam signifies the odor of good fame, as the Council of Florence says, l.c., or the sweetness of virtues and the incorruption of faith (a. 2).

3. Blessed, which is of the validity of the sacrament, as is very commonly taught.

In the sacraments which Christ Himself used, a blessing is not required, but from the very use of Christ the matter received aptitude as a sacramental sign. But in the sacraments which Christ did not use, a special consecration is required by which the matter is made apt to be an instrument of grace (a. 3).

4. By a Bishop, who bears the person of Christ (a. 3, ad 3), which is also required for validity from the Council of Florence.

Nevertheless, some think otherwise, or think that by commission of the Supreme Pontiff a priest can be delegated to consecrate chrism; yet this delegation is never granted (can. 781, § 1), even in the Greek Church, nor is it certainly known that it was granted formerly.

5. With a special blessing, which also is more probably required for validity, but is not altogether certain.

Hence St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 163, says that in the article of death the sacrament can be conferred conditionally with oil alone blessed by a bishop, on account of the great utility of the sacrament; but it is permissible to doubt greatly whether Confirmation can ever be administered as doubtfully valid, since it is not a sacrament of necessity.

For liceity, and indeed under grave obligation, fresh chrism is required. Yet in a case of necessity, when fresh chrism is lacking, or by special dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff, it is lawful to confirm with old chrism.

182. The proximate matter is the anointing of chrism on the forehead, made in the manner of a cross, immediately, by imposition of the hand. This is clear from the Roman Pontifical and from can. 780 and 781, § 2.

It is said: 1. Anointing, which is necessary for the validity of the sacrament, as is clear from the decrees and practice of the Church.

2. Of chrism, namely, composed specially from oil and balsam and blessed by a bishop, as was explained above.

The quantity used must be sufficient for anointing the forehead in the form of a cross.

3. On the forehead, so that it may be signified that the one to be confirmed ought not to blush for Christ. This is very probably required for validity, because such is the ancient and universal use of the Churches.

Hence, if the anointing were made on another part of the body, as on the cheek or breast, the sacrament would be doubtful, and would have to be repeated conditionally. In certain Eastern Churches anointings are made not only on the forehead but also on several other parts, but these are not essential parts, but only integral parts of the sacrament.

4. Made in the manner of a cross, so that thus the one to be confirmed may receive the sign of Christ, whose soldier he is made; this also is necessarily required according to the more common opinion, and is demanded by the very form of the sacrament as it is used in the Latin Church.

St. Thomas, a. 9, explains the reasons for consignation made with the cross on the forehead: "In this sacrament man receives the Holy Spirit for the strength of spiritual combat, so that he may confess the faith of Christ strongly, even among adversaries of the faith. Whence he is fittingly signed with chrism with the sign of the cross on the forehead for two reasons: first, because he is marked with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign of his leader, which indeed ought to be evident and manifest. But among all places of the human body the forehead is most manifest, since it is almost never covered; and therefore the confirmed person is anointed with chrism on the forehead, so that in manifest fashion he may show himself to be a Christian, just as also the apostles, after the Holy Spirit had been received, manifested themselves, who before were hiding in the upper room; second, because someone is hindered from the free confession of the name of Christ on account of two things, namely on account of fear and on account of shame. But the sign of each of these is manifested especially on the forehead... whence those who are ashamed blush, but those who fear grow pale... And therefore he is signed on the forehead with chrism, so that neither on account of fear nor on account of shame may he omit to confess the name of Christ." The Council of Florence teaches the same.

5. Immediately: not by means of an instrument, but by the hand itself imposed.

Thus the Holy Office, January 14, 1885; and can. 781, § 2; otherwise a true imposition of the hand would not be present and the following condition would be lacking.

6. By imposition of the hand, insofar, however, as it is not distinguished from the anointing itself made by the hand, but is necessarily included in it.

The first imposition of hands made over all who are to be confirmed, which is premised to the anointing, does not pertain to the sacramental sign itself, but is a mere ceremony, so that if it has been omitted, the sacrament is not to be repeated for those confirmed, nor is it required that all those to be confirmed themselves be present for it.

For liceity it is required that the anointing be made with the right thumb, with the rest of the hand imposed over the head; but if without a just reason it were done with another finger or with the left hand, it would be a sin: it is not established that it is grave.

183. The form is: 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 Spirit. Amen. This is prescribed today by the Ritual and is handed down by the Council of Florence; but previously it underwent several changes. In the Greek Church there is another, substantially equivalent as to sense and certainly valid there: Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit: Σφραγίς δωρεᾶς Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

St. Thomas, a. 4, shows the fittingness of the form:

"The form of a sacrament ought to contain whatever pertains to the species of the sacrament... In this sacrament the Holy Spirit is given for the strength of spiritual combat. And therefore in this sacrament there are three things necessary, which are contained in the aforesaid form. The first of these is the cause conferring the fullness of spiritual strength, which is the Holy Trinity, which is expressed when it is said: In the name of the Father...; the second is the spiritual strength itself which is conferred upon man through the sacrament of visible matter unto salvation, and this indeed is touched upon when it is said: I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation; the third is the sign which is given to the combatant, just as also in bodily combat soldiers are marked with the insignia of their leaders, and as to this it is said: I consign thee with the sign of the cross, in which, namely, our King triumphed."

For validity there are required:

1. I sign thee, namely, with the mark and character of a soldier of Christ; to which in Greek corresponds: seal or signet;

2. I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the grace received through the anointing of the Holy Spirit; which in Greek is said: of the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to seal the gift, i.e. the grace, of the Holy Spirit is to confirm it in the one having it, to render it firmer and more stable;

3. also probably: in the name of the Father...; yet it is not certain, because it is lacking in the Greek, unless it be said that the whole Trinity is implicitly indicated by the name of the Holy Spirit. Besides, nothing prevents the Church from having determined a different form for the Latin and Greek Church. Whence in practice the sacrament will not be certain unless all the words are said.

An accidental change would be if someone said: I strengthen in place of I confirm; or of sanctification in place of of salvation.