Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question Third. On the Minister of Confirmation
89. The ordinary and extraordinary minister. 1. The ordinary minister of confirmation is the bishop alone, so that a simple priest cannot validly confirm of himself. And indeed, in Sacred Scripture only the apostles are read to have administered the sacrament of confirmation;1 therefore the Church has always held that only bishops can validly confirm of themselves.2
- The extraordinary minister of confirmation is a simple priest who has been delegated to confirm either by common law or by particular indult of the Holy See. Moreover, only the supreme pontiff confers this delegation validly, whether by law or in fact.3
a. By the law itself Cardinals, Prelates or Abbots nullius, Prefects, and Vicars Apostolic have the power of confirming. Nevertheless they cannot validly use it except in their own territory and while their office lasts; but in their own territory they can also confirm subjects of another.4
b. Theologians ask what that power is which is conceded to a simple priest by the Supreme Pontiff, by force of which he can validly confirm: whether it is a power of jurisdiction or a power of order. The matter can be explained in this way. The Christian faithful composing the militant Church constitute, as it were, the army of Christ, whose leaders are bishops and priests, the former indeed higher, the latter lower. Through confirmation the faithful are marked out as soldiers of Christ. But not all indiscriminately, nor all leaders, can enroll soldiers, but only higher leaders and princes; therefore only bishops can administer confirmation.
But the supreme leader of the army, from a just cause, can also extraordinarily delegate lower leaders to the office of enrolling soldiers; therefore nothing prevents even simple priests, by delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, from being able extraordinarily to administer the sacrament of confirmation.
The power by which the supreme pontiff delegates priests for confirming is a power of jurisdiction; but the power by which bishops and delegated priests confirm is not a power of jurisdiction, but a power of order; for confirmation is conferred not by way of judgment but by way of consecration.
The power of order is conferred through the sacrament of order, but not yet wholly and fully, because it does not suffice for administering all the sacraments. But through the order of episcopate the whole power is communicated, so that the bishop possesses the full and indelible power of order, which is sufficient for administering all the sacraments which do not require jurisdiction. Now the power of order conferred in ordination can be completed not only through internal consecration, as in bishops, but also through external delegation, at least in part, namely as much as is required for confirming. Therefore the power of confirming, which inheres perpetually in the bishop by force of ordination, is conferred transiently on the priest by force of delegation.5
c. There is a grave controversy whether by law and from divine institution only the supreme pontiff, or also a bishop, can validly delegate a simple priest to chrismate. This controversy has no practical moment, because it is certain that the supreme pontiff has in fact reserved this faculty to himself, so that confirmation conferred by a simple priest with only the delegation of a bishop is invalid.6
d. In the Eastern Greek Church all priests, from ancient custom, confirm validly, both Catholics and schismatics, as long as the power of confirming has not been expressly revoked.7 This power has certainly been taken away from Greek priests, both Catholics and schismatics, in Bulgaria, in Albania, in Cyprus, in Italy and the adjacent islands, and among the Lebanese Maronites.8 - Therefore if any return from schism to Catholic unity, they are to be confirmed again absolutely where they come from a region in which the faculty of confirming has been taken away from schismatic presbyters; but where they come from a region in which this faculty has not been taken away, the norm which the Holy See itself established in these cases is to be followed: "It is not expedient that those confirmed by schismatic presbyters be anointed again by a bishop, unless they are to be promoted to tonsure and orders, or unless they themselves or their parents ask it, and unless, after inquiry has been made concerning the manner of conferring confirmation, it is found that a brush was used; in these cases the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred secretly and under condition. But if doubt remains concerning the revocation of the faculty in that place or concerning the very fact of confirmation conferred, recourse must be had to the Holy See."9
- a. Both a bishop and also a priest endowed with a local apostolic privilege can in his own territory confirm not only his own subjects, but also outsiders, unless their own bishop has positively contradicted it, from custom and the tacit consent of the proper bishop of the outsiders.
b. In order that a bishop can licitly confirm in another diocese, he needs the permission of the bishop of the place, at least reasonably presumed. It is rarely conceded to priests that they confirm outside their own territory.
c. A bishop can confer confirmation privately and without crozier and mitre on his own subjects in another diocese.
d. A bishop has the power of administering confirmation also in exempt places within the boundaries of his diocese.
1 Acts, c. 8 and c. 19.
2 Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 3, De reform. Cn. 782, 1.
3 Cf. Zeitschrift f. k. Th., 1882, p. 567 ff.
4 Cn. 782, 2.
5 Cf. Pesch, Praelect. dogm., VI, n. 554.
6 Cf. Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 7, c. 8, n. 3 ss.
7 Holy Office, 15 Jan. 1766, declares that the power of confirming had not been generally taken away from schismatic priests.
8 Holy Office, 3 July 1853.
9 Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1885; S. C. de Prop. Fide, 5 July 1886.
90. The obligation of confirming. 1. A bishop is bound under grave obligation to offer his subjects sometimes the opportunity of receiving the sacrament of confirmation. A priest endowed with apostolic privilege is bound to the same toward those in whose favor the faculty was conceded.
An Ordinary who is legitimately impeded or lacking the power of confirming is bound, if it can be done, to provide at least within any five-year period that this sacrament be administered to his subjects.1
He is bound under light obligation to confirm those reasonably asking, if he can conveniently do so and cannot defer confirmation to another near time. But according to the common opinion he is not bound to confirm a dying person who asks; for, as Lehmkuhl wisely notes (n. 100, n. 137), "if he does this for one person and denies it to another, there will be reason for scandal; but if he wishes to satisfy all, a grave burden will be imposed on him."
In the year 1884, when the Asiatic disease was raging at Naples, the faculty was conceded to the archbishop of delegating priests who would minister this sacrament to the dying.
1 Cn. 785, 3.