Confirmation

84. Definition. Confirmation is a sacrament by which, through the anointing of chrism and the imposition of the hand under a certain form of words, the Holy Spirit is conferred for strengthening the faith received in baptism.

a. Confirmation is the complement of baptism, by which, through more abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit, the supernatural life infused in baptism is increased and perfected. Therefore in the first centuries of the Church confirmation was conferred together with baptism.

b. Concerning the time of institution, some (Scotus) teach that confirmation was instituted by Christ the Lord after his resurrection, when he conferred on the apostles the fullness of episcopal power by those words: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you ... Receive the Holy Spirit."² But others think that this sacrament was instituted at the Last Supper, when Christ had a longer discourse to the apostles.³ For since Christ in this discourse several times promises that he will send the Holy Spirit both to the apostles and to the other faithful, it is not incredible that he at the same time taught in what way the Holy Spirit was to be conferred on individuals. Hence there prevailed and is preserved in the Church the custom of preparing chrism on the Lord's Supper. Nevertheless the patrons of this opinion concede that Christ at the Last Supper only taught the apostles the matter and form of confirmation, but did not give them the power of conferring this sacrament, because the apostles at that time had not yet been instituted bishops, to whom alone it belongs to minister this sacrament.⁴ Hence a third opinion arose, which holds that the institution of this sacrament was begun at the Last Supper but completed after the resurrection, when the full power of priestly and episcopal order was conferred on the apostles.⁵

¹ St. Thomas III, q. 72; St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 161-188; Suarez, De sacramentis, disp. 32-38; Coninck, De sacramentis, q. 72, n. 1-115; Sporer-Kazenberger, Supplementum theol. sacram., c. 2, n. 1-49; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. mor., IV, n. 785-807; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., II, n. 89-104 (n. 120-144); Heimbucher, Die hl. Firmung (Augsburg: Huttler, 1889); Dolger, Das Sakrament der Firmung (Vienna: Mayer, 1906); Code of Canon Law, 780-800.

² John 20, 21-22.

³ John 14-17.

⁴ Suarez, disp. 32, sect. 2, n. 4; Sporer-Kazenberger, n. 5.

⁵ Coninck, n. 23.

85. The effects of this sacrament are: a. an increase of sanctifying grace, virtues, and gifts of the Holy Spirit; for it is a sacrament of the living, which supposes first grace; b. sacramental grace: a right to special actual graces by which the faith received in baptism can be preserved against internal and external temptations and unconquerably defended; c. the impression of a character, by which a baptized man is constituted a soldier of Christ, the supreme leader, in the fight against the enemies of salvation; hence it is that this sacrament can be repeated neither licitly nor validly.

In the first times of the Church the sacrament of confirmation produced effects altogether extraordinary, namely graces freely given or charisms, especially the charism of tongues.¹ Since these effects chiefly tended to show to unbelievers the Holy Spirit vivifying and governing the Church of Christ, and were necessary only in the beginnings of the Church, afterward they ceased.

¹ 1 Cor. 12, 4-11.

86. On the remote matter. The valid remote matter of confirmation is chrism made from olive oil and balsam and blessed by a bishop¹ with the special blessing of chrism.

1. Chrism is a mixture composed of oil and balsam. Olive oil is certainly required for the value of the sacrament; for only olive oil is and is called simply oil. Balsam must certainly be mixed in by necessity of precept; that it must also be mixed in by necessity of sacrament cannot be demonstrated. That chrism is the matter of this sacrament is clear from the words of Eugenius IV and from the constant tradition of the Church.

a. Balsam seems to have to be mixed in by necessity of precept, but not by necessity of sacrament. For oil consecrated with the special blessing of confirmation was in the first times called chrism. Moreover, before the fifth century there is found no document from which it is clear that balsam was mixed with the oil of confirmation. Finally, to the question whether confirmation administered with oil without balsam ought to be repeated, Innocent III responded that nothing was to be repeated.²

b. It does not matter whether balsam of this or that species or region is mixed in; but it must be mixed in in such a quantity that the oil gives off the odor of balsam, yet it is not necessary that it be mixed with each single part of the oil.

c. In the Greek Church, from ancient usage, several other aromatics are mixed with the chrism; yet for this reason the matter of confirmation does not become invalid or illicit, provided oil and balsam are present, which alone are necessary.³

2. That chrism must be consecrated by a bishop is necessary for the value of the sacrament, even if the sacrament is conferred by a presbyter. This is rightly deduced from the fact that this proposition, "the sacrament of extreme unction can be validly ministered with oil not consecrated by episcopal blessing," was condemned as rash and close to error; for the same holds a fortiori concerning confirmation.⁴

To most it seems certain that a simple priest cannot validly consecrate chrism, not even by delegation of the supreme pontiff. For in the decree of Eugenius IV it is said that the matter of confirmation is chrism blessed by a bishop. Moreover, although the power of administering confirmation is sometimes conferred on a simple priest, nevertheless it is always prescribed that he use only chrism blessed by a bishop.⁵ But concerning the facts which are brought forward to the contrary, they say that it is not certainly clear.⁶ Nevertheless it can scarcely be doubted that Eugenius IV, on 28 Jan. 1444, gave the vicar provincial of the Friars Minor in Bosnia the power of making chrism.⁷

3. In order that it be certainly valid matter, the chrism must have been blessed by the special blessing of chrism, by which it is constituted the matter of this sacrament; other oil blessed by a bishop is doubtful matter of the sacrament of confirmation.⁸

Therefore confirmation administered with the oil of catechumens or of the sick is doubtful, because it has not been consecrated with the blessing which is prescribed for chrism. Since nevertheless the sacrament is not certainly invalid, in the article of death, or if someone otherwise would always lack this sacrament, if chrism is lacking, confirmation could be conferred under condition with another oil; and in the same way, if it can be done, confirmation which was conferred with oil alone is to be repeated under condition.⁹

4. For administering confirmation licitly, from the precept of the Church fresh chrism must be used, i.e., chrism consecrated on the Lord's Supper just past. Only where new chrism cannot be had and there is an urgent cause of conferring confirmation is it licit to use old chrism.

¹ From the decree of Eugenius IV for the Armenians. Cn. 780, 781.

² Cf. Dolger, p. 192 f.

³ Benedict XIV, constitution Ex quo primum, 1 Mar. 1756.

⁴ Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1611; 14 Sept. 1842. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. m., II, n. 93 (n. 126); Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 788; cn. 781.

⁵ Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 7, c. 8, n. 1 s.

⁶ Cf. Benedict XIV, l. c., l. 7, c. 7; Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 789.

⁷ Cf. Linz. Quartalschrift, 1904, p. 805 ff.

⁸ Threefold oil is blessed by the bishop on the Lord's Supper, each with a special blessing of the Roman Pontifical: oil of the sick (O. I.), oil of catechumens or of salvation (O. S.), and holy chrism (S. Ch. or Ch.). The oil of the sick is used in administering extreme unction and in the consecration of bells for the exterior anointing; the oil of catechumens is used in baptism for the anointing which is made before baptism itself, in the ordination of a presbyter, and in some other consecrations, e.g., in the consecration of kings; chrism is used in confirmation, in baptism after baptism itself has been conferred, in the consecration of a bishop, and in various consecrations, e.g., of a chalice, paten, altar, bell (interiorly), etc.

⁹ St. Alphonsus, n. 162.

87. On the proximate matter. The proximate matter is the anointing of the person to be confirmed on the forehead, in the manner of a cross, applied immediately through the imposition of the hand.

Theologians sometimes signify both of these actions, namely the anointing and the imposition of the hand, by the name chrismation; ordinarily, however, they designate only the anointing by this name.

1. That the anointing with chrism is necessary for the value of the sacrament cannot be doubted. Although a few theologians thought that the imposition of the hand alone sufficed for the value of the sacrament, nevertheless, from the fact that chrism is essential matter, it follows that chrismation also is necessary for value.

2. That the anointing must be made immediately by the minister is certainly of the essence of the sacrament; otherwise the imposition of the hand, which is essential, would be lacking. Therefore confirmation is invalid in which the anointing is made by means of an instrument.¹

3. That the anointing must be done on the forehead and in the manner of a cross is likewise more probably necessary for the value of the sacrament; for the Church has always regarded the anointing of the forehead as proper to confirmation, and the anointing of the crown of the head as proper to the baptismal anointing. Therefore if the anointing is made on the cheek or on the mouth, confirmation seems to be invalid. That the anointing must be made in the manner of a cross is clear from the form, which otherwise would not be true.

4. Finally, the imposition of the hand also, which the apostles themselves are read to have used for conferring the Holy Spirit,² is essential. But that imposition is understood which is made by anointing. Therefore by the very fact that the bishop, anointing with his hand, touches the person to be confirmed, he is judged to impose his hand on him.

There is a twofold imposition of hands in confirmation: one at the beginning of the sacred rite, where the bishop extends his hands over those to be confirmed and recites the prayer Omnipotens; the other, which is not distinct from the anointing. This latter, not the first, is essential; for since the Greeks do not have the first imposition of hands, it would have to be said that they do not have the sacrament of confirmation, if that first imposition were affirmed to be necessary.³ And just as the first imposition of the hand, so also the blessing which is given at the end is required neither by necessity of sacrament nor by precept of the Church; for the words of the Roman Pontifical by which those to be confirmed are admonished not to depart before the blessing are not preceptive. Therefore although those to be confirmed, as far as can be done, ought to be present at the first imposition of hands and not depart before the blessing, nevertheless this is not necessary by force of precept.

¹ Cn. 781, 2.

² Cf. Acts 19, 6. Cn. 780; 781, 2.

³ Cf. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 6 Aug. 1840.

88. On the form. The form of confirmation consists in these words: 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 Spirit. In this form: a. I sign signifies the sacramental action of signing and at the same time the essential effect of the sacrament, namely that a Christian man becomes a soldier of Christ; b. I confirm denotes the sacramental action of anointing and at the same time the likewise essential effect, namely the more abundant strength and grace of the Holy Spirit; c. the word thee designates the subject.

The form of the Greeks is this: Receive, or there is given to thee, the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this form, which is certainly valid and, by concession of the Roman Pontiff, also licit in the Greek Church, there is contained the principal minister of the sacrament, the Holy Spirit; the sacramental action applied to the person who is confirmed; and the essential effect, namely the communication of the Holy Spirit, who is the strength of the soul for professing the faith generously.

In the form of confirmation, therefore, the following are not essential: a. the word I sign or I confirm, for either one suffices; b. the words with the sign of the cross; c. the words with the chrism of salvation; d. the invocation of the most holy Trinity, for these are not found in the form of the Greeks, and the form of the Greeks cannot be called invalid. The consequence must be denied in the argument by which some try to show that the invocation of the most holy Trinity is necessary by necessity of sacrament, namely: confirmation is the complement of baptism; but in baptism the invocation of the most holy Trinity is necessary; therefore also in confirmation. For from the fact that in baptism, which is the beginning of faith, that invocation is necessary, it does not follow that it is also necessary in confirmation. Therefore the invocation of the most holy Trinity is necessary only by necessity of precept. - Besides, considering the diverse forms by which the sacrament of confirmation was administered in different places and times, it seems necessary to say that any words constitute a valid form which exhibit the essential character of the sacrament, namely the confirmation and perfection of faith and the communication of the Holy Spirit.

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

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

3. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

91. Who can receive confirmation. 1. The subject of valid confirmation is every baptized man not yet confirmed, even if lacking the use of reason. For confirmation is the natural complement of the spiritual life which is conferred in baptism, and in the same way as baptism it has been instituted for all.

2. Ordinarily, however, little children before the use of reason are not to be confirmed; but when they have attained the use of reason, they should receive this sacrament as soon as possible.¹ The reason of the first point is that it is not fitting that the complement of spiritual life for fighting for the faith be communicated to a man before he exists as fit for this fight. Therefore the practice of the Latin Church, prevailing almost everywhere, has this: that children are confirmed neither before nor long after the seventh or eighth year of age. The reason of the second point is that through confirmation a man becomes more fit both for grasping the precepts of the Christian life and for directing his life according to them.

a. Nevertheless little children before the use of reason can be confirmed: alpha. if danger of life is imminent; beta. if the bishop can provide the occasion of receiving this sacrament only rarely; gamma. if somewhere (as among the Greeks, in Spain, and in Latin America) there exists the custom of confirming infants.

b. In the first twelve centuries throughout the whole Church, confirmation was conferred on infants immediately after baptism. This custom the Greek Church retained, but the Latin Church changed it, so that ordinarily it does not confer confirmation on infants before the use of reason; and this was established by a wise counsel.²

c. Therefore the following can be validly and licitly confirmed: alpha. the perpetually insane, as soon as a suitable occasion of receiving the sacrament has offered itself; beta. the dying, although they have not yet attained the use of reason, so that in the resurrection they may appear perfect and not be deprived of so great an increase of grace and glory.

d. Neophytes who in the article of death are baptized while entirely uninstructed and cannot be sufficiently instructed so as to elicit the intention of receiving this sacrament are not to be confirmed.³

e. As far as can be done, children are to be instructed and led to receiving the sacrament of confirmation when they are admitted to receiving holy communion. Since by the recent law concerning the first communion of children they are to be admitted to the holy table soon after they have attained the use of reason, the sacraments, according to the mind of the Church, are conferred in this order: baptism, eucharist, confirmation.

¹ Cf. Benedict XIV, constitution Eo quamvis, 4 May 1745. Cn. 788: The administration of this sacrament in the Latin Church is suitably deferred to about the seventh year of age.

² Cf. Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 3, q. 17.

³ Holy Office, 10 Apr. 1861.

92. The obligation of receiving confirmation. Of itself there does not exist a grave obligation of receiving confirmation. By these things it is not denied that one who, when the occasion has been offered, refuses to receive confirmation can sin gravely by reason of contempt; but by reason of the sacrament itself there is no grave necessity of receiving it.

a. That a grave obligation does not exist, either of seeking the occasion or of receiving the sacrament when the occasion has been offered, many have taught, especially among the older theologians, with St. Thomas.¹ But more recent theologians, who follow St. Alphonsus (n. 181), for the most part affirm a grave obligation; nevertheless they do not bring forward an argument by which they clearly demonstrate it.

alpha. Not from the law of nature: for if this obligation were proved from the nature of the thing, confirmation would be necessary by necessity of means; but a sacrament which supposes the state of grace cannot be necessary by necessity of means. Then they argue in this way: by the law of nature each one is bound to fortify himself with this sacrament for overcoming temptations in the spiritual life which will arise against the faith. - But since several other means instituted for this end are present, by this argument the necessity of the sacrament is not proved. And indeed the sacrament of confirmation confers grace necessary for preserving the faith in dangers, for confessing it externally, and for establishing life according to the faith; nevertheless there are also other means (use of the sacraments, prayer, works of piety, etc.) by which the end of the sacrament can be obtained. Therefore the whole question is reduced to this: whether God denies the necessary graces to those who, when the opportunity has been given, do not receive confirmation, as if in punishment for such negligence. But this cannot be affirmed. For first, the more common opinion of theologians holds that God does not deny the necessary graces on this account, and the Roman Catechism is also of this opinion.² Nor are the faithful persuaded that they are held by a precept, either divine or ecclesiastical, to receive this sacrament. But if the holy Fathers and ancient councils sometimes seem to affirm the necessity of receiving this sacrament, it must be noted that formerly confirmation was conferred immediately after baptism, and therefore the Fathers and councils, by reason of baptism, from which confirmation was practically not distinguished, urged the obligation of receiving it. Therefore it seems possible to affirm that a strict obligation is not demonstrated, and therefore is not to be established.³

beta. Not from divine law: for a divine precept of receiving confirmation does not exist, since the words of Christ, "that they should wait for the promise of the Father,"⁴ i.e., the Holy Spirit, concern only the apostles. Nor does this other argument have greater force, namely that by the very institution of the sacrament Christ commanded its use: for by instituting the sacrament he willed that all the faithful attain the perfection of spiritual life which is conferred only by this sacrament. - But Christ indeed willed that all attain essential perfection, which consists in the state of grace; but whether Christ also willed that all the faithful attain accidental perfection, which is conferred through confirmation, is in question, and therefore would have to be proved. But it is not proved from the institution itself, because not all things which Christ instituted are commanded.

gamma. Not from ecclesiastical law: for demonstrating this, chiefly two arguments are brought forward. First, certain words from the constitution of Benedict XIV Etsi pastoralis: "They [the Italo-Greeks] are to be admonished that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." - But these words concern entirely particular circumstances, and therefore a universal law cannot be inferred from them.⁵ Then they bring forward the instruction which is found in the appendix of the Roman Ritual and which contains these words: "although this sacrament is not of necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it cannot be rejected and neglected without the guilt of grave sin, when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present"; Clement XIV approved this instruction.⁶ - From these things, however, this one thing is inferred: that the fathers of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, who composed this instruction for missionaries, were of the opinion which they signify by these words; but by no means that they established a universal law, since they lack legislative power. Nor is the approbation of the supreme pontiff an act of legislation.

delta. From the fact that the new Code, when speaking of the obligation of receiving the sacrament of confirmation, uses ambiguous words: "it is licit for no one (under grave? under light?) to neglect it,"⁷ it is rightly and deservedly inferred that it deliberately abstained from settling the question disputed among theologians. For this reason, even today the opinion denying a grave obligation holds.

b. The proposed opinion can have practical moment if someone doubts whether he has already been validly confirmed, or if someone already placed in more advanced age is deterred by great shame from seeking confirmation in a place where all the rest are accustomed to be confirmed in childhood or infancy. These are to be admonished and exhorted, but not compelled, to receive the sacrament of confirmation.⁸ - From the same opinion it does not follow that parents are not held by a grave obligation to take care that their children be confirmed when the occasion is given; for since they have spiritual care of them, from piety they are bound, if they can, to procure for them that which so greatly promotes spiritual life.

¹ Summa III, q. 72, a. 1, ad 3.

² Cf. Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 3, q. 15 s.

³ Cf. Dolger, p. 179 ff.

⁴ Acts 1, 4.

⁵ Cf. Gury-Ballerini ad n. 270.

⁶ The instruction is of the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 4 May 1774; in another instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1866, this obligation is denied.

⁷ Cn. 787.

⁸ Cf. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 164.

93. Required conditions. For receiving confirmation validly there is required baptism received, and in adults at least habitual intention, which is implicitly contained in the will of living as a Christian. For receiving confirmation licitly and fruitfully there is required the state of grace. Therefore he who before confirmation has fallen into grave sin can indeed procure grace for himself either through confession or through perfect contrition; nevertheless confession is very much to be advised and by custom is everywhere premised.

That the one to be confirmed must be fasting, or, if it is permitted by age, strengthened by the holy eucharist, is nowhere prescribed; nevertheless it is laudably observed where confirmation is conferred on those who have already been admitted to holy communion.

94. On the rite to be observed. The rite to be observed in confirmation is set forth by the Roman Pontifical; this rite, in matters of greater moment, obliges under grave sin.

1. Confirmation is ordinarily to be conferred in a church; nevertheless, when some cause exists, to be judged by the discretion of the bishop, it can also be conferred outside a church in a becoming place, as if those to be confirmed are the sick or adults who, from a just cause, cannot approach the church.

2. Since confirmation, according to the Pontifical, can be conferred less solemnly on any day, at any hour, and in any place, nothing prevents a bishop, from a reasonable cause, from confirming in any chapel without mitre and crozier, using only rochet and stole; indeed, from a just cause he can do this even privately, using only a stole.¹

3. The so-called "blow" does not seem to be anything other than a sign of charity and peace. For in antiquity the confirming bishop, saying The Lord be with you or The God of the humble be with you, kissed the one to be confirmed. In the course of time, in place of the kiss, for the sake of propriety, there succeeded a light touch, which the scholastics called a "blow."²

4. According to the Pontifical the forehead of the confirmed person must be bound with a band, both lest the chrism flow down, and so that it may be signified that the grace received must be diligently preserved. This band, which formerly was worn for several days, is now for the most part not used.

5. The one to be confirmed, in confirmation, when the bishop says: N., I sign thee with the sign of the cross, can take care that, besides his baptismal name, another name of a Saint be imposed on him.³

¹ Holy Office, 12 Feb. 1851.

² Cf. Dolger, p. 155.

³ Cn. 797.

95. On the sponsors of confirmation.¹ 1. From ancient custom and from the prescription of the canons, in confirmation, just as in baptism, a sponsor is to be used, if one can be had.

2. a. There is to be only one sponsor for each one to be confirmed.

b. A sponsor is to present only one or two; but more only with the permission of the bishop.

It is plainly forbidden that one male sponsor hold all the boys and one female sponsor all the girls, unless an apostolic indult is present.

3. From valid confirmation there arises a spiritual relationship between the confirmed person and the sponsor, and the obligation of having the confirmed person perpetually commended to himself and of caring for his Christian education.²

¹ S. C. R., 20 Sept. 1749, n. 2404.

² Cn. 793-797.

96. On the conditions required for the office of sponsor. 1. In order that someone be validly a sponsor, there is required:

a. That he have the use of reason and the intention of performing this office.

b. That he be confirmed.

Since it can sometimes happen that in mission places no one confirmed is present who may act as sponsor, in this case it is permitted that first some be confirmed without a sponsor, who then themselves can be sponsors of others.¹

c. That he be enrolled in no heretical or schismatic sect, etc., as above n. 78.²

d. That he not be the father, mother, or spouse of the one to be confirmed.

e. That he be designated by the one to be confirmed or by his parents or guardians, or, if these are lacking, by the minister or by the pastor.

f. That he physically touch the one to be confirmed in the very act of confirmation, either personally or through a proxy.

Indeed, in antiquity the custom was that the one to be confirmed placed his right foot upon the right foot of the sponsor; now, however, according to approved custom, the sponsor places his right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 4 May 1774.

² The printed text reads "n. 91," evidently in error; the reference required by the matter is n. 78, on the conditions required for valid sponsorship in baptism.

97. In order that someone be licitly a sponsor, there is required:

a. That he be different from the sponsor of baptism, unless the minister from a reasonable cause permits otherwise, or confirmation is conferred immediately after baptism.

b. That he be of the same sex as the one to be confirmed, unless the minister in a particular case from a reasonable cause permits otherwise.

c. That he have reached the fourteenth year of age, unless for a just cause something else seems good to the minister.

d. That he not be unworthy, as above n. 80.¹

e. That he know the rudiments of faith.

f. That he not be a novice or professed member in any religion, unless necessity urges and the express permission of the Superior, at least local, is had.

g. That he not be constituted in sacred orders, unless the permission of his own ordinary is added.

A priest who by apostolic indult administers the sacrament cannot at the same time act as sponsor.² If the confirming bishop wished to be the sponsor of the one to be confirmed, he would have to do this through a proxy.³

On the recording of confirmation.⁴ 1. The pastor is to enter the names of the minister, of those confirmed, etc., in a special book.

2. If the proper pastor of the confirmed person was not present, the minister, either personally or through another, is to inform him as soon as possible about the confirmation conferred.

¹ The printed text reads "n. 92," evidently in error; the reference required by the matter is n. 80, on the conditions required for licit sponsorship in baptism.

² S. C. de Prop. Fide, 21 Sept. 1843.

³ S. C. R., 14 June 1873.

⁴ Cn. 798-799.

CONFIRMATION is a sacrament by which a baptized person receives grace boldly to profess and defend the Faith which he received in Baptism. It is, then, complementary to Baptism; as Baptism makes a man a follower of Christ, Confirmation makes him a soldier of Christ. It is a sacrament of the living, and gives an increase of sanctifying grace to the soul together with the right to receive those actual graces which will be needed to resist temptation and to lead a good Christian life. It is also one of the three sacraments that imprint a character on the soul.

Divines are not agreed as to what constitutes the matter of Confirmation. Some hold that the general imposition of hands by the bishop who confirms at the beginning of the rite is the essential matter; while the subsequent anointing of each person to be confirmed belongs to the matter accidentally. Others maintain that this general imposition of hands and the anointing form the essential matter of the sacrament. The common opinion is that the anointing with chrism, together with the simultaneous imposition of the hand of the Bishop on the forehead of the confirmed person while he makes on it the sign of the cross with the chrism, is the adequate and essential matter of the sacrament.

Chrism, which is thus the remote matter of Confirmation, is made of olive oil and balsam. It is a disputed point whether the mixture of balsam is only of precept or whether it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. However, balsam of any country will suffice. The chrism thus made must be blessed by a bishop, and this, according to the common opinion, is necessary for the validity of the sacrament.

Three kinds of holy oils are blessed by the bishop on Maundy Thursday—the oil of the sick, with which Extreme Unction is given; the oil of catechumens, with which those about to be baptized are anointed in administering Baptism; and chrism. It is probable that any one of these holy oils will serve for the others, so that Confirmation given with oil of the sick would be probably valid. Still it is not lawful to follow this opinion except in case of necessity.

A fresh supply of holy oils should be procured every year after they have been blessed by the bishop on Maundy 'Thursday, and the old ones burned. However, if the new oils cannot be obtained at the proper time, especially in the missions where Vicars Apostolic without episcopal consecration have faculties to give Confirmation, the old oils may be used as long as the difficulty of obtaining new ones lasts.

The form of Confirmation 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 Ghost.” There is some doubt as to whether the invocation of the Blessed Trinity is an essential part of the form, chiefly because it does not appear along with the other part in the form used in the Eastern Church. The question belongs to dogmatic theology, but briefly we may say that if it is an essential part of the form, the invocation is elsewhere in the Oriental rite.

THE ordinary minister of Confirmation is a bishop, but the Pope may, and in the missions frequently does, delegate faculties to a priest to administer the sacrament with chrism blessed by a bishop. In other words, a bishop is the ordinary official in the hierarchy who has the power to admit Christians into the army of our Lord by confirming them, but the General of the army in special cases empowers a simple priest to do this. It is a disputed point whether the Pope could empower a simple priest to bless the chrism.

By law Cardinals, Abbots and Prelates of no diocese, Prefects and Vicars Apostolic have the faculty of giving Confirmation within their territory during their tenure of office (Can. 782, sec. 3).

A bishop may not give Confirmation outside his diocese without the leave of the bishop of the place; but within his diocese he may confirm all who come to him, whether they are his subjects or not, unless their own bishop has expressly forbidden it (Can. 783). A bishop is bound to give his subjects who have not been confirmed the opportunity of receiving the sacrament.

He must also be prepared to administer Confirmation when a reasonable request is made for it by any of the faithful subject to his charge.

In case the bishop himself is prevented from administering Confirmation he should provide that his subjects have the opportunity of receiving it at least every five years (Can. 785).

ANYONE is capable of being confirmed who has not yet received this sacrament and who has been baptized. For the validity of the sacrament the use of reason is not necessary, but adults who have the use of reason must have at least an habitual intention of receiving the sacrament. No one may lawfully receive this sacrament who is not in the state of grace. Moreover, according to modern discipline, Confirmation is only given to those who have been well instructed in Christian doctrine and know well what is required of a good Catholic. Before Confirmation is administered, the opportunity should be taken to give special instructions in Catholic faith and practice to those who are about to receive the sacrament (Can. 1330).

The First Synod of Westminster prescribes that priests who have the cure of souls should do all in their power to have children confirmed, especially if they be of the humbler sort, so that they may be able to resist the temptations to which their faith will afterward be exposed. Canon 787 says that no one may neglect to receive Confirmation on occasion being offered, and that parish priests are to take care that the faithful receive it opportunely.

For Confirmation there should presents one or two to be confirmed. be one sponsor who He himself should be confirmed, should have the use of reason, and should have the intention of fulfilling his office. He should not be a heretic or schismatic, or criminal, nor the father, mother or spouse of the person to be confirmed. He should be lawfully designated, and should physically touch the person confirmed by personal contact or by proxy.

That he may be lawfully admitted he should not be the same who acted as sponsor in Baptism, and he should be of the same sex as the person confirmed (Can. 794-796).

Spiritual relationship arises between him and the person confirmed (Can. 797). But it is not a diriment impediment of marriage (Can. 1079).

(St. Thomas, III, q. 72; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 161-188; Homo Apostolicus, tract 14, nn. 39-53).¹

We must speak first about Confirmation considered in itself, then about its ministration, finally about the reception of Confirmation.

¹ Cf. Dolger, Das Sakrament der Firmung historisch-dogmatisch dargestellt; Umberg, Die Schriftlehre vom Sakrament der Firmung.

Confirmation is a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred for strength in faith through anointing and imposition of the hand under a certain form of words. Confirmation is the complement of Baptism, insofar as, namely, it increases and strengthens the spiritual life received through Baptism (n. 115), and joins to the army of the Lord the human being who has been enrolled by Baptism in the family of Christ (n. 115). It is called Confirmation from the word confirming, that is, making firm. With these things premised, we shall treat first of the existence, then of the essence, then of the effects, finally of the necessity of Confirmation.

Confirmation is a true sacrament of the New Law. This is of faith from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the Confirmation of the baptized is an idle ceremony and not rather a true and proper sacrament... let him be anathema."¹

It is doubtful at what time Christ instituted Confirmation. According to some, at the Last Supper; according to others, after the resurrection and before the ascension, namely while He was speaking with the Apostles about the kingdom of God and completing the mysteries of salvation;² according to others, on the day of Pentecost.

¹ Session 7, On Confirmation, canon 1.

² Acts 1:3.

I. Remote matter. 1. For validity, so that this be undoubted, there are required: 1. chrism, that is, a composition from olive oil and balsam; 2. consecrated; 3. by a bishop; 4. and this by a special consecration of chrism. Now from the aforesaid:

a) Olive oil is certainly required, as is clear from the universal and constant tradition of the Church¹ (St. Thomas, III, q. 72, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 162).

b) The admixture of balsam is most probably required, regard being had both to the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, which hands down that the matter is chrism confected from oil and balsam, and from the practice of the Church. The reason for doubting is taken from the fact that Paul IV and Pius V conceded to the Indians the privilege of using in place of balsam a liquid which is called balsam by them, but is not; likewise from the fact that the use of balsam does not appear before the sixth century, although even before that oil came under the name of chrism.

c) Some consecration or blessing likewise seems to be required, attention again being paid to the decree of Eugene IV and to the practice of the Church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 163).

d) Consecration by a bishop is certainly prescribed, but it is not so certain that it is required for validity (cf. canon 781, § 1). The power of consecrating chrism seems in antiquity sometimes to have been conferred on a simple priest.² It is also certain that the faculty of confirming with chrism consecrated by a bishop can be granted to a simple priest (canon 781, § 1).

e) A special consecration or blessing, that is, the consecration proper to chrism, likewise seems to be required; this is already suggested by the very necessity of chrism.

Corollary. Since olive oil is certainly required for validity, note that nut oil or other kinds of oil can never be used.

2. For liceity it is required that certainly valid matter be used, and that the chrism have been consecrated on the most recent Lord's Supper day (canon 734, § 1). Hence it is not permitted to confirm with old chrism, unless necessity urges. It is said, certainly valid matter; this does not prevent Confirmation from being conferred under condition, at least in danger of death, with oil of catechumens if chrism consecrated by a special blessing cannot be had; for the great usefulness of the sacrament suffices so that it can be exposed to the danger of nullity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 162).

¹ Cf. Innocent III, Decretals, book I, title 15, at the beginning of chapter 1, Cum venisset.

² Dolger, op. cit., pp. 108-112.

II. Proximate matter. 1. For validity, so that this be undoubted, there are required: 1. anointing; 2. on the forehead; 3. made immediately by the hand of the minister, not through an instrument; 4. in the form of a cross (cf. canon 780). But what degree of certainty belongs to each of the things enumerated, see among the dogmatic theologians.

The imposition of the hand is certainly required for the essence of Confirmation, as is already clear from Sacred Scripture itself.¹ But, according to the opinion which today is commonly held as certain, the required imposition of the hand is neither that imposition or extension of the hand which is had at the beginning of the rite and is made over all those to be confirmed under the prayer: Almighty, everlasting God, etc. (cf. canons 780 and 781, § 2);² nor is it that imposition of the hand by which the minister, during the anointing itself, places the rest of the hand on the head of the one to be confirmed;³ but it is the anointing itself, so that this is at once both anointing and imposition of the hand.

2. For liceity it is required that certainly valid proximate matter be used, and that the anointing be made with the thumb of the right hand; for this is the usage of the Church, which nevertheless quite probably obliges only under light obligation, because in the consecration of a bishop the thumb and index finger of each hand, indeed even both whole hands, are anointed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 165).

¹ Acts 8:17; 19:6; Hebrews 6:2.

² Decree for the Armenians; Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 6 August 1840 (Collectanea, n. 908).

³ Innocent III, Decretals, book I, title 15, chapter 1.

The legitimate form is:

I. For the Latin Church: "I sign you with the sign of the cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Probably these suffice for the essence: I sign and confirm you; or, I confirm you with the chrism of salvation; since these alone are found equivalently in the form of the Greeks. Nevertheless it is also probable that all things in the form are essential; this depends on the question what the direct power of the Church is concerning the value of the sacraments (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 72, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, VI, 167, 168).

II. For the Greek Church: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit." Yet it is disputed whether the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity also, which in the Greek Euchologia is premised to chrismation, pertains to the essence. Several of those who judge that in the Latin form all things, even the expression of the Most Holy Trinity, are essential affirm this; and they are bound to affirm it unless they admit that Christ did not determine the form of Confirmation in a fixed specific form.

The effects of Confirmation are:

I. Sanctifying grace; per se second grace or an increase of grace, per accidens more probably first grace (n. 6); there is joined an increase of the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

II. Sacramental grace: this consists in the fact that the sanctifying grace which Confirmation increases is both ordered to this, that the faithful constantly hold and constantly profess the faith, and carries with it the right to actual graces to be received in order to those effects (St. Thomas, III, q. 62, a. 1; St. Alphonsus, VI, 169).

III. Character. 1. The existence of character is clear from what was said in n. 8.

2. The effects of character. It causes the baptized person to be constituted a soldier of Christ and to be deputed to profess the faith fearlessly (St. Thomas, III, q. 72, a. 5).

I. Necessity of means is rightly denied (canon 787); for Confirmation is necessary neither for acquiring sanctifying grace, because it is ordered to increasing it, nor for obtaining actual graces by which the spiritual life can be preserved, since a right to graces simply necessary is already given through Baptism.

II. Necessity of precept. There is an obligation of receiving Confirmation; and that obligation seems to be grave. It is said:

1. There is an obligation. This is clear: 1. From canon 787: "It is permitted to no one, when the occasion is offered, to neglect it"; add canon 1021, § 2: "Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of Confirmation are to receive it before they are admitted to marriage, if they can do so without grave inconvenience." 2. From these words by which Pope Urban draws out the obligation from the end and character of Confirmation: "All the faithful, through the imposition of the hands of bishops, ought to receive the Holy Spirit after Baptism, so that they may be found fully Christians."¹ 3. From those things by which we shall prove the grave obligation.

2. The obligation seems to be grave. I understand a grave obligation per se, not only sometimes per accidens. Namely, all concede that one who neglects to receive Confirmation can per accidens sin gravely: 1. by reason of scandal; 2. by reason of contempt; 3. by reason of a particular danger and spiritual weakness (St. Alphonsus, VI, 182). But it is disputed whether a grave obligation per se must be asserted. With St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), against several more recent authors, it seems that it must be affirmed. For first, St. Paul² reckons Confirmation among the fundamental institutions of Christianity; this hints that it obliges under grave obligation, all the more because all the other things enumerated there³ oblige under grave obligation.⁴ Then Benedict XIV, in the bull Etsi pastoralis,⁵ declares with respect to the Italo-Greeks who had been confirmed by a non-competent priest and therefore invalidly: "that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it."⁶

Now Benedict XIV by these words intends and signifies a grave obligation existing per se, not only that which held the Italo-Greeks per accidens by reason of special circumstances. For: a) This is the more obvious sense, since the preceding words regard all, so that even the words cited seem to regard all and not only the Italo-Greeks; for the rest, for a whole century all theologians understood the words of the Supreme Pontiff in the aforesaid sense. b) The Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide,⁷ approved by Clement XIV, which teaches that the obligation is present per se, refers to the bull of Benedict XIV. c) Benedict XIV himself sufficiently signifies that this is the meaning of his bull, as can be seen in the unpublished works of Pope Benedict XIV.⁸ Observe also that Benedict XIV, as a private doctor, held as certain and almost common the opinion which teaches that there is per se a grave obligation of receiving Confirmation.⁹ Besides, the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide,¹⁰ which Clement XIV "approved and commanded to be inviolably observed by all whom it concerns," declares: This sacrament "cannot be rejected and neglected without guilt of grave sin when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present."¹¹ Moreover a sacrament which is held as the complement of Baptism, or which pertains to the integrity of Christian being, seems to be imposed under grave obligation. But Confirmation is of this kind; hence Pope Urban, to use his words again: "All the faithful, through the imposition of the hands of bishops, ought to receive the Holy Spirit after Baptism, so that they may be found fully Christians." Then Confirmation confers the Holy Spirit, who is called "the Promise of the Father"; it confers grace which both in the Old and in the New Testament is assigned as the proper gift of the Messianic kingdom. Now it is difficult to admit that these things are not to be pursued under a precept, and that a grave one.¹²

Corollary I. It seems it must be said that the obligation of Confirmation is not only of ecclesiastical law, but also of divine law, since several of the arguments brought forward indicate divine law.

Corollary II. Per se the sacrament must be repeated under condition if a prudent doubt exists whether it was truly or validly conferred (canon 732, § 2).

Corollary III. Those more advanced in age who are very ashamed to receive the sacrament with children can, if they cannot be confirmed privately, scandal being excluded, be left in good faith.

¹ In canon Omnes, 1, distinction 5, De consecratione.

² Hebrews 6:2.

³ Hebrews 6:1-2.

⁴ Cf. Umberg, op. cit., p. 200.

⁵ 26 May 1742.

⁶ The complete text here is: "Although those confirmed by a simple priest are not to be compelled to receive this kind of sacrament of Confirmation from a bishop if scandals could arise from such compulsion, since the sacrament of Confirmation does not have such necessity that without it someone cannot be saved, nevertheless they are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it."

⁷ 4 May 1774 (Collectanea, n. 503).

⁸ These were edited by Dr. F. Heiner; there, on p. 215, Benedict XIV declares that in his Constitution Etsi pastoralis he established several things, among them: "That, although one of the Italo-Greeks has received Chrismation from some simple priest, he must not be forced to receive Chrismation from the bishop when some grave scandal could perhaps be feared from this step; nevertheless, since this sacrament is not absolutely indispensable for eternal salvation, the Ordinary of the place to whom the Italo-Greek is subject ought wisely to admonish him that, in order not to be guilty of grave sin, when the occasion of being confirmed comes, he should not neglect it, since in this case contempt of the sacrament would have place, as we also demonstrated in our sixth Instruction."

⁹ "It is certain," he writes, "that men already in adult age must, either in fact or at least in desire, be confirmed by necessity of precept, which is also numbered among the precepts of God. It is called a precept of the Church when one endowed with the use of reason, if a bishop, the minister of this sacrament, is present, is impeded by no legitimate cause from receiving it. Thus almost all theologians teach, and those who are especially commended by praise of wisdom; they testify that those are stained with grave fault who, because of contempt or yawning sluggishness, omit to have the soul fortified with the grace of this sacrament" (Institutiones Ecclesiasticae, VI, n. 10).

¹⁰ 4 May 1774 (Collectanea, n. 503).

¹¹ The complete text here is: "For the rest, let missionaries not omit also to exhort the peoples entrusted to them to receive Confirmation at the due time, and also that parents see to it that their children are confirmed; for although this sacrament is not of necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it cannot be rejected and neglected without guilt of grave sin when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present. Now this doctrine, if it is true for all Christ's faithful everywhere, has much more place in those who live in lands of heretics or pagans, in which persecutions sometimes arise against Catholics."

¹² "If Confirmation," says Pohle, "were a merely useful and not a necessary sacrament, why would it have been instituted and ordained by Christ as the supplement and completion of Baptism for all Christians?" (Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, vol. III, p. 158). Cf. Umberg, op. cit., p. 198.

I. The person ministering. 1. A bishop can validly confer Confirmation. This is of faith from the Council of Trent.¹ Therefore a bishop can always validly minister the sacrament.

2. A presbyter in fact cannot validly confer Confirmation without delegation. Thus all. But it is disputed whether or not even a presbyter per se or of himself enjoys the faculty of validly ministering Confirmation. Some affirm this; nevertheless they add that, by force of ecclesiastical or even divine disposition, the valid exercise of the said power does not belong to the presbyter. Others deny that a presbyter can per se or of himself confer Confirmation validly, but say that he enjoys only an incomplete power of confirming, to be completed by delegation. Among these, however, some teach that this kind of delegation, regard being had only to divine law, belongs even to a bishop; others judge that it is reserved, not only in fact but also by force of divine law, to the Supreme Pontiff alone.² From what has been said, draw out the things which follow.

3. The ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop alone (canon 782, § 1). The extraordinary minister is a presbyter to whom this faculty has been granted either by common law or by a special indult of the Apostolic See (canon 782, § 2). Now:

a) Besides Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church according to the norm of canon 239, § 1, n. 23,³ an abbot or prelate nullius, a vicar and prefect apostolic enjoy this faculty by the law itself; these, however, cannot use it validly except within the boundaries of their territory and only during their office (canon 782, § 3). To the said persons are also reckoned the pro-vicar and pro-prefect to whom the care of the vicariate or prefecture has come according to the norm of canon 309 (canon 310, compared with canon 294, § 2). The aforesaid persons can validly confirm all within the boundaries of their territory.

b) A presbyter of the Latin rite to whom this faculty belongs by force of an indult validly confers Confirmation only on the faithful of his own rite, unless another thing has been expressly provided in the indult (canon 782, § 4). If, however, the indult is local, in the territory designated for him he validly confirms all the faithful of his own rite, even outsiders. If the indult is personal, he validly confirms only those persons who are comprehended by the indult.

c) Priests of the Eastern rite, by force of immemorial custom, validly and licitly administer Confirmation together with Baptism to infants of their own rite, except in those churches to which by a special statute the Latin discipline has been extended,⁴ as has taken place in Bulgaria, Italy, and the adjacent islands. But "it is unlawful for priests who enjoy the faculty or privilege of conferring Confirmation together with Baptism on infants of their own rite to minister the same to infants of the Latin rite" (canon 782, § 5); since these words do not exclude validity, the conferral does not seem invalid.

¹ Session 7, On Confirmation, canon 3.

² Cf. Gilsamann, Zur Lehre der Scholastik vom Spender der Firmung; De Smet, Tractatus dogmatico-moralis de sacramentis in genere, de Baptismo et Confirmatione, n. 400 and following.

³ Cardinals confirm validly everywhere, with the burden, however, of recording the name of the confirmed person (canon 239, § 1, n. 23).

⁴ Aertnys-Damen, II, n. 87.

II. Liceity of ministering. 1. A bishop legitimately ministers this sacrament in his own diocese even to outsiders, unless an express prohibition of their proper Ordinary stands in the way (canon 783, § 1). In another diocese he needs the permission of the local Ordinary, at least reasonably presumed, unless the case concerns his own subjects to whom he confers Confirmation privately and without staff and mitre (canon 783, § 2).

2. A presbyter who is furnished with a local apostolic privilege licitly confirms even outsiders in the territory designated for him, unless their Ordinaries have expressly forbidden it (canon 784).

III. Obligation of ministering. 1. A bishop is bound by obligation to confer this sacrament on subjects rightly and reasonably asking for it, especially at the time of the visitation of the diocese. A presbyter endowed with apostolic privilege is held by the same obligation toward those in whose favor the faculty has been granted (canon 785, §§ 1 and 2). Nevertheless they are not bound to confer Confirmation on a dying person who asks for it; for they cannot furnish that office to one and deny it to another, but to satisfy all would be an excessive burden (St. Alphonsus, VI, 175).

2. An Ordinary impeded by a legitimate cause or lacking the power of confirming must, so far as it can be done, provide at least within every five-year period that this sacrament be administered to his subjects (canon 785, § 3).

3. If he has gravely neglected to minister the sacrament of Confirmation to his subjects by himself or through another, the Metropolitan is bound to inform the Holy See (canon 785, § 4). Grave neglect seems to be present if the occasion of receiving Confirmation is deferred beyond five years.

IV. Things to be observed in ministering regard time, place, sacred vestments, ceremonies, and sponsors.

1. Time. This sacrament can be conferred at any time; but it is especially fitting that it be administered in the week of Pentecost (canon 790). It is only of counsel that the one confirming and those to be confirmed be fasting (St. Alphonsus, VI, 174, question 1).

2. Place. The proper place for administering Confirmation is a church; nevertheless the minister, for a cause which he has judged just and reasonable, can confer it in any decent place (canon 791). A bishop has the right of administering it within the boundaries of his diocese also in exempt places (canon 792).

3. Sacred vestments are set forth in the Pontifical; to omit most of them would be grave (St. Alphonsus, VI, 184, note 1).

4. Ceremonies to be observed by a bishop are found in the Roman Pontifical; those to be observed by a presbyter are contained in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide.¹ Their obligation is grave from its genus (St. Alphonsus, VI, 184).

5. Sponsors: a) A sponsor, if he can be had, is to be used (canon 793), and this under grave obligation (St. Alphonsus, VI, 185). Moreover:

1. There is to be only one sponsor for each person to be confirmed (canon 794, § 2); hence the person to be confirmed cannot have two sponsors.

2. The same person can be sponsor for only one or two, unless for a just cause something else seems good to the minister (canon 794, § 1). Therefore the minister can for a just cause permit that the same person be sponsor even for several, indeed that one man be sponsor for all males, and one woman for all females.²

b) In order that someone be validly constituted sponsor, it is required: 1. that he himself also be confirmed, have attained the use of reason, and have the intention of carrying out that office; 2. that he be ascribed to no heretical or schismatical sect, nor be excommunicated or infamous with infamy of law by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, or excluded from legitimate acts, nor be a cleric deposed or degraded; 3. that he not be the father, mother, or spouse of the person to be confirmed; 4. that he be designated by the person to be confirmed or by his parents or tutors, or, if these are lacking or refuse, by the minister or by the pastor; 5. that in the very act of Confirmation he physically touch the person to be confirmed, either by himself or through a procurator (canon 795).

c) In order that someone be licitly admitted to the office of sponsor, it is required: 1. that he be someone other than the sponsor of Baptism, unless a reasonable cause, in the judgment of the minister, suggests otherwise, or Confirmation is legitimately conferred immediately after Baptism; 2. that he be of the same sex as the person to be confirmed, unless in particular cases something else seems good to the minister for a reasonable cause; 3. that the prescriptions of canon 766 also be observed (canon 796).³

d) From valid Confirmation there arises between the confirmed person and the sponsor a spiritual kinship, from which the sponsor is bound by obligation to have the confirmed person perpetually commended to himself and to care for his Christian education (canon 797). Nevertheless the said kinship does not carry with it an impediment of marriage.

¹ 4 May 1774 (Collectanea, n. 503).

² Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 24 June 1823; 12 July 1823; Holy Office, 16 June 1884 (Collectanea, n. 1619).

³ Canon 766 sets forth the requisites for someone to be licitly admitted as sponsor in Baptism (n. 84).

V. Notation and proof of Confirmation ministered. 1. The pastor is to inscribe in a special book the names of the minister, of those confirmed, of the parents and sponsors, and the day and place of Confirmation (canon 798). Besides, it should be noted in the book of the baptized if the baptized person has received Confirmation (canon 798). If the proper pastor of the confirmed person was not present, concerning the Confirmation conferred the minister, either by himself or through another, should as soon as possible inform the same pastor (canon 799).

2. To prove Confirmation conferred, provided prejudice is done to no one, one witness beyond all exception suffices, or the oath of the confirmed person himself, unless he was confirmed in infant age (canon 800), that is, before the completed seventh year (canon 88, § 3).

I. The person receiving. Every and only baptized person not yet confirmed can validly be confirmed (canon 786; n. 38). Per se even those perpetually insane are to be anointed, namely so that at least according to being they may be constituted perfect and complete Christians; and this must be urged even more if the discussion concerns the partially insane (St. Alphonsus, VI, 180).

II. The age of reception. In the first twelve centuries there was the usage of conferring Confirmation together with Baptism. This practice still flourishes in the Greek Church; but in the Latin Church it has been changed, except in some regions in which even little children are presented to be confirmed, as in Spain and in Latin America. For the rest, with respect to the Latin Church this rule holds: the administration of Confirmation is suitably deferred to about the seventh year of age; nevertheless it can be conferred even before then if the infant is constituted in danger of death, or if it seems expedient to the minister for just and grave causes (canon 788), for example if otherwise the infants would lack the occasion of receiving the sacrament for a very long time (St. Alphonsus, VI, 178). In other cases it cannot be conferred before about the seventh year of age.¹ It is not expedient to defer Confirmation longer than about the seventh year of age, since "thus the young adolescents confirmed become more pliant for grasping precepts, and more suited for receiving the Eucharist afterward, and from having received it they receive more abundant advantages."² Cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 65, aa. 1 and 2.

¹ Pontifical Commission, 16 June 1931, reply to II (A.A.S. 1931, p. 353); compare, however, with respect to the custom which flourishes in Spain and elsewhere, the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 13 June 1932 (A.A.S. 1932, p. 271).

² Thus Leo XIII in the brief Abrogata, 22 June 1897.

III. Things to be observed in reception. In the one receiving there are required: 1. the state of grace (canon 786), which, if it has been lost, is to be recovered through confession or through perfect contrition; 2. sufficient instruction, if the one to be confirmed possesses the use of reason (cited canon), namely instruction in the rudiments of faith and in the principal things which regard the sacrament of Confirmation.¹ It is only of counsel that the one to be confirmed, if it can conveniently be done, be fasting.² Finally, those to be confirmed, if there are several, are to be present for the first imposition or extension of hands, nor are they to depart until the rite has been completed (canon 789). It is said, if there are several, for if there is only one person to be confirmed and he is absent, the ceremony cannot even be begun.

Note. The precept of the Roman Pontifical of wearing a linen band until the chrism has dried is no longer observed, but immediately after the anointing the chrism is wiped from the forehead of the confirmed person (St. Alphonsus, VI, 180).

¹ The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 4 May 1774, says thus: "Those to be anointed with sacred chrism must first be diligently instructed, according to the teachings of the Roman Catechism, concerning the nature, dignity, effects, and dispositions prerequired for receiving this sacrament worthily. Likewise they must be instructed concerning the rudiments of faith, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the acts of the theological virtues, and they must hold in memory the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed" (Collectanea, n. 503).

² Cf. Roman Pontifical.

The Sacrament of Confirmation.—Next to Baptism, not in necessity or dignity but in likeness and in time, is Confirmation; for Confirmation completes the work begun in Baptism, and it is also frequently received immediately or next after Baptism. It may be defined as “the Sacrament in which through the anointing with chrism and the prayer of the bishop a baptized person is perfected and strengthened in the grace received and signed indelibly with the character of soldier of Jesus Christ.”

(a) The element of the Sacrament (remote matter) is chrism, that is, a mixture of olive oil and balsam specially blessed by the bishop and applied (proximate matter) by an anointing and the imposition of hands on the forehead of the recipient. The law of the Church requires that the chrism be new (i.e., made at the last previous consecration of oils), and that the anointing be made with the right thumb in the form of a cross.

(b) The form of Confirmation in the Latin Church is as follows: “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 Ghost.”

The Minister of Confirmation.—(a) Qualifications.—The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is only the bishop; but a priest may act as extraordinary minister, either from the common law (viz., Cardinals, Abbots, etc.), or from special indult (Canon 782). The bishop may confirm outsiders in his own diocese, unless their own Ordinary forbids, and with permission he may confirm outside his diocese (Canon 783). Since January 1, 1947, by force of the decree of the Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments (Spiritus Sanctus) the following were established as extraordinary ministers within the limits of their territories and for subjects in danger of death.

1. “pastors having their own territories, therefore excluding personal and family pastors, unless they have also their own territory.” Under this heading are included secular and religious pastors. It is to be noted that, since national parishes in the United States are assigned a definite territory, pastors of such parishes enjoy the privilege of this decree. Pastors of Negro and Indian parishes, even if they are considered to be personal pastors, may be included, for the jurisdiction is both personal and territorial. Military chaplains can not confirm in virtue of this decree.

2. “the vicars spoken of in Canon 471, and also parochial administrators (vicarii oeconomi).” The first group are canonically innominate and authors adopt various titles for the personages involved. However, the reference is always to the priests placed in actual charge of cura animarum in parishes which have been fully incorporated. The second group mentioned are the vicarii oeconomi, priests appointed canonically as administrators of vacant parishes (see Canons 472, n.1; 473,1). All other vicars lack the power, namely, the Diocesan Administrator (vicarius capitularis), Vicar General, Vicarius Substitutus (priest who takes place of absent pastor), Vicarius Adjutor (assists a disabled pastor), Vicarius Cooperator (curate), those who according to Canon 472, n.2, take temporary charge of a vacant parish prior to appointment of a true administrator, chaplains of schools, hospitals, and other charitable institutions (by rescript of Nov. 18, 1948, the faculty was extended also to chaplains of maternity hospitals and foundling homes in the United States, and this faculty is renewable), the seminary rector, religious superiors even in exempt communities.

3. “priests to whom is entrusted exclusively and permanently within a definite territory, and with a definite church, the complete care of souls together with the rights and duties of pastors.” Such territorial arrangements are not common in the United States. The reference may be to priests established as quasi-pastors in Canon 216, Sec.3 (hence pastors in missionary territory and prefectures), episcopal delegates to the territories later to be erected as parishes or to maintain the status of a perpetual vicarage. Perhaps the reference is only to special arrangements made by particular diocesan laws.

(b) Duties.—The ordinary minister of this Sacrament should confer it when his subjects reasonably request it, and the Ordinary should see that the Sacrament is administered to his people, if possible, at least every five years (Canon 785). It would be unreasonable, however, to expect a bishop to go to every sick or dying person who desires Confirmation, as the Sacrament is not necessary for salvation and the task would be morally impossible, The Sacrament should be performed validly, worthily, and rubrically. When Confirmation is given, fasting is of counsel, not of precept. The use of a sponsor in Confirmation seems to be a grave obligation, when possible. A recipient can have but one sponsor, and a sponsor can act for only one or two confirmandi, unless it appear to the minister that there is sufficient reason to have a sponsor act for more (Canon 794). The pastor of the recipient, if he is unaware of the Confirmation, should be notified as soon as possible (Canon 799).

(c) Various prescriptions, some of them subjects of special study, are attendant upon the grant of power to confirm to pastors and “equivalent pastors.” The major ones are summarily stated here. The pastor obtains this power when he acquires the office. It lasts as long as he holds office. The exercise of his power becomes unlawful if he falls under censure; in certain cases it may then even be invalid. Theologians disagree as to the precise nature of the power, whether it be of orders, of jurisdiction, of both, an intrinsic or extrinsic modification of orders, etc. The common opinion holds that it is solely a power of orders. Hence, Canon 209 may not be safely used here, and an ordinary assistant who attempts to confirm would not fall under any irregularity; a pastor, however, might, by misuse of his power, be not only deprived of it, but be placed under an irregularity. Use of the power is not dependent on the permission of the local Ordinary. It may be necessary to inquire however, whether the bishop wishes to confirm in particular cases. Episcopal instructions on this matter must be complied with.

(d) Subjects of the Extraordinary Minister. The decree, Spiritus Sanctus, in its second rule lays down a condition for the valid administration of Confirmation by the extraordinary minister and determines the proper subject. The new faculty is strictly personal (hence it may not be delegated to others) and strictly territorial (hence the administration must take place within the confines of the minister’s district and therein extends even to exempt places). The recipient must be “in real danger of death because of a serious illness from which it is foreseen that he will die.”

Before treating the illness established as a condition for validity, other conditions of the subject must be considered. The decree describes the proper recipient as fidelis in two places. The question has been discussed whether this limits the subjects to Catholics and excludes validly baptized Protestants. Authors are not agreed. Perhaps, since the extraordinary minister can act only within the powers given him in the decree, he would have to interpret fidelis as extending solely to Catholics. On May 1, 1948, the Congregation for the Oriental Church issued a grant of powers to the Latin extraordinary ministers to confer Confirmation under the same conditions to Catholics of the Oriental rite who live under the jurisdiction of a Latin Ordinary, who are in the territory of the Latin pastor and whose rite has no established parish or mission in the locality. (This grant of power was previously impossible by virtue of Canon 782, Sec.4.) In emergency cases there would be no need to await the arrival of the proper pastor. Since Ruthenian Catholics are not under the Latin Ordinaries in this country, it seems that the decree might not extend to them. The point is disputed, but it would be imprudent to act on the opinion that the Ruthenians are included until the question is officially settled. The recipient need not be a permanent resident in the territory by reason of domicile or quasi-domicile; physical presence suffices.

The final condition of dangerous sickness is similar to the one in Extreme Unction; it must arise from an intrinsic cause, not from an extrinsic cause. and includes not only sickness, but also wounds and accident cases. The decree speaks of the subject in “vero mortis periculo.” Some thought that the wording distinguished the sickness from mere “periculo” mortis, and hence must be certain, not doubtful or probable. In response to the Cardinal of Palermo, on March 6, 1947, the Congregation of the Sacraments favored the opinion that the norms for “urgente mortis periculo” (Canons 1043, 1044, 1046) are applicable. As a rule of thumb, many authors propose: if the sickness permits the administration of Extreme Unction, it also justifies the giving of Confirmation in accordance with the terms of the decree.

The Recipient of Confirmation.—(a) Qualifications.—The subject of this Sacrament is only a baptized person, and in adults intention is necessary. The general custom in the Latin Church is not to confirm before the seventh year, or thereabout, has been attained; but the Sacrament may be given even earlier, if an infant is in danger of death, or if there seems to the minister to be a just and grave reason for confirming one under seven years of age (Canon 788). Those who have the use of reason should not be admitted to Confirmation without previous instruction on the nature of the Sacrament and the requirements for its proper reception.

(b) Duties.—There is an obligation to receive this Sacrament when one has the opportunity (Canon 787); but apart from scandal, contempt, or danger to salvation the obligation seems light. Hence, if a person advanced in years is ashamed to receive Confirmation with the children, he should be advised but not reproved; nor should he be denied absolution as if he were certainly guilty of serious fault. The recipient should be in the state of grace, and it is advisable that he go to confession beforehand if he have serious sin on his conscience. Though not necessary, it is more suitable that the recipient be fasting. A new name may be taken in Confirmation, and it is proper that those whose baptismal name is unsuitable should either have it changed at this time or add the name of a Saint. Those who are being confirmed should be present for the entire ceremony (Canon 789).

The Sponsors in Confirmation.—(a) Qualifications.—The requirements for validity are, mutatis mutandis, practically the same as for baptismal sponsorship. Thus, the sponsor must be designated by the parents or the candidate, or, in default of them, by the pastor or minister; he must not be the parent or spouse of the confirmandus; he must physically touch the confirmandus at the moment of Confirmation. Further, it is required that the sponsor be already confirmed himself. The requirements for licitness are the same as for Baptism, and moreover, as a rule, the sponsor at Confirmation should be of the same sex as the recipient and be different from the baptismal sponsor (Canons 795, 796).

(b) Duties.—The godfather at Confirmation contracts a lifelong spiritual relationship with his godchild (which does not constitute a matrimonial impediment). The latter should have a special place in his prayers according to the order of charity, and, if necessity arises, should receive his protection and assistance in spiritual matters (Canon 797).

Duties of the Pastor in Reference to Confirmation.—(a) The pastor should instruct his people on the nature and advantages of Confirmation and should see to it that they receive the Sacrament in due time (Canon 787). He should also instruct his parishioners about the terms of Spiritus Sanctus. His power as extraordinary minister imposes an obligation per se grave to use it when the cases arise; excusing causes, however, are possible, and neglect in a single case would be only venial. At appointed times each year he should hold a continuous course of instructions over a period of several days in order to prepare the classes of children for the proper reception of Confirmation (Canon 1300).

(b) The pastor should see that the Confirmations of his parishioners are entered in a special book of record, and should also note in the baptismal register the fact of Confirmation (Canons 798, 470, n. 2).

If the first imposition of hands was omitted, Confirmation is not therefore to be repeated, nor even under condition. S. C. de P. F. 6 Aug. 1840.

Cf. Instr. and Decrees S. C. de P. F. at Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 306 ff.

"Whether, in the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation, a Bishop can, as the Predecessor in the Diocese of Policastro had been accustomed to do, sustain the parts of Minister and Sponsor at one and the same time, namely with the right hand to sign the forehead of the one to be Confirmed with sacred Chrism as Minister, and with the left to hold the Confirmand himself as Sponsor? Resp. Let the confirming Bishop in the case perform the office of Sponsor through a Procurator." S. R. C. 14 June 1875.

Whether the same person can be sponsor who lifts the infant from the sacred font and receives the same in the sacrament of confirmation. Resp. Negatively, unless however necessity compels. Chap. 100, dist. 4, On consecration. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 16, p. 537 ff. The matter is nevertheless light, if anyone acts otherwise. St. Alph., bk. 6, n. 187.

"But because it can happen that in places of Missions no one is present who has previously been confirmed, it is permitted in this case that some be confirmed without sponsor, who afterwards will be able to be sponsors of the others." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 4 May 1774.

"1. Since in the Rubrics concerning the sacrament of Confirmation it is said: Adults or other older persons place their foot upon the right foot of their Sponsor, it is asked whether it suffices if the Sponsor places his right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed? 2. Whether the one to be confirmed, at the time of Confirmation, when the Bishop says: N., I sign you with the sign of the Cross, etc., besides his baptismal name, can take care that another name of a Saint be imposed on himself? To the 1st, that it suffices. To the 2nd, that he can." S. R. C. 20 Sept. 1749.

Confirmation can be administered without miter and cope "with grave and urgent cause," S. C. de P. F. 22 March 1669. "A cause being present, that one can confirm privately without miter and pastoral staff, with a stole employed." S. O. 12 Feb. 1851.

"Whether Confirmation and Extreme Unction are to be given to those neophytes who, baptized in the article of death, are altogether rude and, worn out by the force of disease, cannot be instructed? Resp. Neither the Sacrament of Confirmation nor of Extreme Unction is to be conferred on those dying neophytes whom the Missionary believed capable of baptism, unless they have at least some intention of receiving Confirmation for strength to be added to their soul, and of receiving Sacred Unction for the benefit of the soul ordained for the time of death." S. C. I. 10 Apr. 1861.

"The simultaneous conferral of Baptism and Confirmation in children is not to be admitted, unless perhaps in danger of death, according to practice." S. C. de P. F. 21 March 1851.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that the Confirmation of the baptized is an idle ceremony and not rather a true and proper Sacrament; or that formerly it was nothing other than a certain catechesis by which those approaching adolescence expounded an account of their faith before the Church: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that those who attribute any power to the sacred chrism of Confirmation insult the Holy Spirit: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that the ordinary minister of Holy Confirmation is not the Bishop alone, but any simple priest: let him be anathema.”

“We judge that Confirmation performed by a Bishop, that is, the imposition of hands, is to be received as holy and venerable.” Profession of faith prescribed to the Waldensians.

“Another is the Sacrament of Confirmation, which Bishops confer through the imposition of hands by anointing the regenerated with chrism.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus.

“While a certain missionary, furnished with an Apostolic Indult to confirm, was about to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to many Christians, he was frightened by the gentiles standing in the courtyard. Therefore, the first imposition of hands having been omitted, the prayer Omnipotens having been read hastily as far as the words from heaven, and the commemoration of the seven gifts having been neglected, he pronounced the form: ‘I sign you,’ etc. It is asked whether, with attention to the Encyclical of Benedict XIV, Ex quo primum, and to the scandal which would arise if those Christians were again confirmed conditionally, they can with a safe conscience be left in good faith.—Response. Confirmation is not to be repeated conditionally.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 August 1840.

“When, because of an accidental case, the ceremonies of the final blessing were omitted in Confirmation, the imposition of hands and the anointing nevertheless having been performed, a doubt was proposed by the Bishop: Whether the children in question were validly confirmed?—Response. Affirmative.” Holy Office, 22 June 1892.

“Bishop N. N. sets forth that, while he was in a large town administering the Sacrament of Confirmation in a public church to several hundred children, after he had confirmed two thirds of them the Bishop’s sacred chrism ran out, and it was necessary to have recourse to the chrism which was kept, together with the oil of Catechumens, with the Pastor. Although every care was taken to use the small vessel which bore written on its face sacrum chrisma, nevertheless, in the end it was discovered that the oil of Catechumens was instead contained in that small vessel. The undersigned respectfully asks whether and how he ought to repair this involuntary error.—Response. Let him be silent.” Holy Office, 22 November 1899.

Cf. no. 864.

“Concerning the signing of infants, it is manifest that it is lawful to be done by no one other than a Bishop. For although priests are priests, nevertheless they do not possess the summit of the pontificate. That these things belong to Bishops alone—either to sign or to hand over the Paraclete Spirit—is demonstrated not only by ecclesiastical custom but also by that reading from the Acts of the Apostles which asserts that Peter and John were sent to hand over the Holy Spirit to those already baptized. For when priests baptize, whether apart from a Bishop or in the presence of a Bishop, it is lawful for them to anoint the baptized with chrism, but with that which was consecrated by the Bishop; they may not, however, sign the forehead with the same oil, which is due to Bishops alone when they hand over the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. I cannot, however, speak the words, lest I seem rather to betray than to respond to the consultation.” Innocent I, Epistle 25 to Decentius of Gubbio, chapter 3.

“28. The Confirmation of young persons, the ordination of clerics, and the consecration of places are reserved to the Pope and Bishops because of greed for temporal gain and honor.” Proposition of John Wyclif condemned by the Council of Constance.

“Whether the Abbot Nullius of the Most Holy Trinity of Cava possesses the right, with the consent of the Bishops in the case, to confirm subjects of others in another diocese.—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 11 December 1897.

“1. If one of the schismatics should return to the unity of the Church and, not having anyone with whom he could practice the Greek rite, should embrace the Latin rite (it being understood that he is a simple layman and not a priest), can a Bishop of the Latin rite confirm him conditionally? 2. If Catholic children were baptized by schismatics, can their Latin Bishop reconfirm them conditionally?

“Response. To the first and second: It is not expedient that those confirmed by schismatic priests be anointed again after their return to unity; and according to the mind:

“The mind is that, in particular cases, the Bishop should inform himself of the precise place where the converts were confirmed. If it was in Bulgaria or Cyprus, in Italy or the adjacent islands, among the Lebanese Maronites, or in another place where such a faculty was expressly revoked, he ought to reconfirm them absolutely. If in Wallachia and Moldavia, in Asia or in other places in which it was not expressly revoked, let him acquiesce. But if there should be doubt concerning the place, the manner, or another reasonable circumstance, let him have recourse in particular cases and consult Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 7, chapter 7 ff. Let the same Bishop, the Apostolic Vicar, diligently take care, however, to admonish the Catholics subject to him that it is not lawful for them, outside a case of extreme necessity, to seek Baptism for their children from schismatics or heretics.” Holy Office, 3 July 1853.

“On Wednesday the 6th of the current month, there was taken under examination the doubt raised by the Most Reverend Patriarch of Jerusalem concerning the validity of the Confirmations which schismatic priests confer upon those newly converted from schism to the Catholic religion simultaneously with the Baptism which they sacrilegiously repeat; namely, whether the Confirmation administered under the conditions set forth by the aforementioned Most Reverend Patriarch ought to be considered valid, or whether the child ought, or at least can, be confirmed again conditionally. These Most Eminent General Inquisitors, after mature consideration, judged that the response should be: According to the matters set forth, it is not expedient that the confirmed persons of whom there is question be anointed again by a Bishop, unless they are to be promoted to tonsure and Orders, or they themselves or their parents petition it; in which case the Sacrament of Confirmation is to be conferred secretly and conditionally.” Holy Office, 16 March 1872.

“In this Latin Patriarchate the Sacrament of Confirmation conferred by schismatic priests of Palestine upon infants immediately after Baptism has always been regarded as valid; and therefore those thus confirmed, if they are converted to the Catholic faith, are not confirmed again. Now it sometimes happens that infants whose father is Catholic and mother schismatic, after they have been baptized in the Latin rite, are secretly carried by the mother to a schismatic priest, by whom they are rebaptized and confirmed. Furthermore, it also sometimes happens that parents who are new Catholics, whose children had been baptized by a priest of the Latin rite, return to schism and in it offer their children to a schismatic priest to be baptized again, who rebaptizes and confirms them; afterward, however, repenting, they are again converted to the Catholic faith with their children thus rebaptized and confirmed. It is therefore asked whether the Sacrament of Confirmation thus conferred upon the infants immediately after their sacrilegious rebaptism is valid.

“Response. It is not expedient that the confirmed persons of whom there is question be anointed again by a Bishop unless they are to be promoted to tonsure and Orders, or they themselves or their parents petition it, and unless, after an inquiry has been made concerning the manner of conferring Confirmation, it is discovered that a small brush was employed; in these cases, the Sacrament of Confirmation is to be conferred secretly and conditionally.” Holy Office, 14 January 1885, Patriarch of Jerusalem.

“1. Whether Eastern priests authorized to administer Baptism to children of the Latin rite can at the same time also administer Confirmation to them. 2. If an Eastern priest has administered Baptism and Confirmation simultaneously to a Latin child, must the Confirmation be repeated absolutely or conditionally, or not repeated? 3. Where there is doubt about the fact, namely, whether a Latin child baptized by an Eastern priest was also confirmed by him, must the affirmative presumption be followed, or must Confirmation be repeated conditionally?

“Response. Negative, and according to the mind. The mind is that, since this has often and most gravely been prohibited by the Holy See, the Eastern Bishops are to be admonished that they themselves also deter their priests from this altogether prohibited administration.—To the second: Let the Decree of the Supreme Inquisition of 14 January 1885 be given. Cf. the preceding Resolution.—To the third: Let them have recourse in particular cases, all things pertaining to the matter having been set forth.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 July 1886.

“The Secretary reporting that some Superiors of missions and others to whom the extraordinary faculty of administering the Sacrament of Confirmation is granted by the Apostolic See have sometimes used episcopal vestments and ornaments in its administration, the Most Eminent Fathers declared, and by force of the present Decree declare, that no one whatsoever who is not adorned with the episcopal character, or to whom the use of pontificals otherwise does not belong by a true and lawful privilege, has been or is permitted in the conferral of chrism to employ a rochet, miter, pastoral staff, ring, or pectoral cross. And they decreed that His Holiness was to be supplicated for approval of this declaration, and also that an Instruction was to be prepared for simple priests administering Confirmation as above. His Holiness benignly approved and commanded it to be inviolably observed by all whom it concerns.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 March 1774.

“...Therefore, the priest to whom this faculty has been conceded shall first take care to have with him chrism consecrated by a Catholic Bishop having communion with the same Holy See; and he shall know that it is never lawful for him to administer Confirmation without it or to receive it from heretical or schismatic Bishops.

“He shall further consider whether, in the faculty imparted to him by the Apostolic See, another express faculty is also stated, namely, to use chrism blessed before the current year; otherwise he shall not use it except perhaps in cases of necessity, since this is prohibited by the sacred canons.

“Although Confirmation can be administered at any time, it is nevertheless fitting that it be conferred especially in the week of Pentecost and about the third hour, at which the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles.

“As regards the age of those to be confirmed, the admonition of the Roman Catechism is to be kept before one’s eyes in these words: ‘This is to be observed: the Sacrament of Confirmation can indeed be administered to all after Baptism, but it is nevertheless less expedient for this to be done before children have had the use of reason. Therefore, if it does not seem necessary to await the twelfth year, it is certainly most fitting to defer this Sacrament until the seventh.’ This admonition assuredly has place in children who are in good health. For if it concerns one who labors under a grave disease from which he is foreseen likely to die, not only is it not prohibited to administer sacred chrism to him before the seventh year, but it is expedient that this be done, so that, departing from this life, he may attain greater glory in heaven according to the doctrine of Saint Thomas. Moreover, according to the approved opinion of many theologians, there can be other legitimate causes for anticipating the seventh year in the conferral of this Sacrament, and especially when a long future absence of the Bishop or of a priest to whom, as above, the faculty of administering it has been given is foreseen, or another necessity presses.

“In order that those to be confirmed who have the use of reason receive this Sacrament worthily, they ought to be in grace, and therefore it is very fitting that they precede its reception with sacramental confession. For if, conscious of some mortal sin—which may God avert—they should approach Confirmation, not only would they not receive the grace of this Sacrament, but they would bind themselves by a most grave sacrilege.

“According to the ancient use of the Church, those to be confirmed ought to be fasting, and it would therefore be desirable that this also be observed at the present time.

“Those to be anointed with sacred chrism are first to be diligently instructed, according to the doctrines of the Roman Catechism, concerning the nature, dignity, and effects of this Sacrament and the dispositions prerequisite for receiving it worthily. Likewise, they must be instructed concerning the rudiments of the faith, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the acts of the theological virtues, and they must retain in memory the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed.

“Moreover, let missionaries not omit also to exhort the peoples entrusted to them to receive Confirmation at the due time and parents to take care that their children are confirmed. For although this Sacrament is not of the necessity of means for salvation, it nevertheless cannot be spurned or neglected without the guilt of grave sin when a suitable occasion for receiving it is present. Furthermore, if this doctrine is true for all the Christian faithful wherever they are, it has much more place in those who dwell in the lands of heretics or pagans, in which persecutions sometimes break out against Catholics. Hence it is necessary that they be strengthened by the power of the sevenfold Spirit, by which they may not only believe with the heart unto justice but also make confession with the mouth unto salvation and show themselves prepared even to shed blood for Christ.

“Since this Sacrament imprints an indelible character upon the soul, it ought not to be repeated; and therefore one who has been confirmed must not dare to approach to receive it again; nor should an excommunicate, one under interdict, one communicating in divine things with heretics or schismatics, one who practices idolatrous rites, or one who sins publicly in another manner; likewise, one who has not fulfilled the Easter precept.

“Those to be confirmed shall take care not to approach this Sacrament with a dirty forehead and uncombed hair; nevertheless, they and their sponsors are to be clothed in simple garments arranged for modesty. Women who are to receive it and those who will exercise the office of godmother shall present themselves in the church not with vain ornaments or a painted face, but with all modesty and reverence.

“If any of those to be confirmed should have a disgraceful name or one unbecoming a Christian person, let him assume another at Confirmation.

“Although the employment of a godfather or godmother in receiving this Sacrament is not of its necessity, the laudable custom of the Church nevertheless commends it and the sacred canons prescribe it.

“Excluded from this office are both those under fourteen years of age and those who have not yet received the Sacrament of Confirmation. But because it can happen that in mission territories no one is present who has previously been confirmed, it is permitted in this case that some be confirmed without a sponsor, who afterward can be sponsors for the others.

“As regards sponsors of this kind, these additional rules are to be observed: I. Not several, but only one, whether a man or a woman, is to be employed as godfather or godmother. II. Men shall not discharge the office of sponsor for females, nor women for males, but a sponsor of his or her own sex is to be employed for each. III. Unless necessity compels, the sponsor for Confirmation is not to be the same as, but different from, the sponsor for Baptism. IV. Excommunicates, those under interdict, public sinners, or those who have omitted the Easter precept are to be excluded from the office of sponsor.

“Concerning the spiritual relationship which is contracted in this Sacrament, the Council of Trent established the following: ‘Let that relationship also which is contracted from Confirmation not extend beyond the one confirming, the one confirmed, his father and mother, and the one holding him, all impediments of this spiritual relationship between other persons having been entirely removed.’

“This Decree of the Council has place among those who are bound to observe the Statutes of Trent. Others, however, shall conform themselves in this matter to the discipline prevailing in their regions.

“When the time has arrived at which the priest, using the faculty granted to him by the Apostolic See as above, intends to administer Confirmation, clothed in priestly vestments, or at least an alb and stole, standing before the altar and turned toward the people arranged on either side—the males on the right and the females on the left—he shall admonish those present summarily concerning the foregoing. He shall especially declare to them that no one other than a Bishop alone is the ordinary minister of Confirmation, but that he is prepared to confer it by a right delegated by the Holy See.

“Then, the Decree of delegation or Apostolic Brief having been read in the vernacular language in a loud and intelligible voice, he shall again admonish those present that no one who has been confirmed is to depart without receiving the blessing which he himself will give after the Confirmation of all. Likewise, infants whom for a just cause he judges ought to be confirmed in their earliest age are to be held by their sponsors in their right arms, and adults are to place their foot upon the right foot of their sponsor.

“This second admonition having been completed, while standing likewise and turned toward those to be confirmed, with his hands joined before his breast, and those to be confirmed bending their knees and holding their hands joined before their breast, he says,” etc. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 4 May 1774; C. no. 666.

What is confirmation? - It is a sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ the Lord, by which, through the imposition of hands and the anointing of chrism in the word, the strength of grace is given for professing the faith received in baptism. Trent sess. 7, c. 1, 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Decree Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 44; Roman Catechism 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 1; Suppl. q. 29, a. 3; E. M.

What are the effects of confirmation? - It is strength for constantly professing the faith where there is need, and for defending it when the opportunity is given. And therefore it brings to the soul grace and helps by which it may provide this. Moreover, since through the sacrament of confirmation men receive power and strength for spiritual combat against the enemies of the faith, it is necessary that by its reception a character be imprinted. Florence, l.c.; Roman Catechism 2, 5, 20, 23; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 1, 5, 7.

What is the matter of confirmation? - It is twofold: the imposition of hands and the anointing of chrism. The imposition of hands is not that which is done at the beginning of the sacred function over all those to be confirmed, but that which is had when the minister anoints each one to be confirmed with blessed chrism. But chrism is confected from olive oil and balsam of any region. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; St. Pius V, Brief, Aug. 2, 1571; Benedict XIV, Const. Ex quo primum, March 1, 1756; S. C. de P. F., Aug. 6, 1840; Roman Catechism 7; Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 2; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 8; E. M.

Note: Concerning the adequate matter of this sacrament, St. Alphonsus has these things: "The common or almost common opinion, which we defend and judge most certain with Bellarmine, holds that the adequate and total matter of confirmation is the anointing with chrism, which is applied to those to be confirmed through the imposition of the bishop's hand... Therefore we confess that for the matter of confirmation both anointing and imposition are required, but only that imposition which is indistinct from the anointing... But according to our opinion, that the total adequate matter of confirmation is the anointing of chrism performed by the hand of the bishop, it must be noted that it is of the essence of the sacrament: 1. That the anointing be done on the forehead, as is had from C. un. de Sacra unctione, and from the Decree of Eugene IV according to the common opinion... 2. That the anointing be done in the form of a cross, according to St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 4 ad 3, whom the doctors also commonly follow... 3. That the anointing be done by the hand of the ministering bishop himself." L. 164; St.

Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 9; Roman Catechism 24; Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; E. M. "Through chrismation of the forehead there is designated the imposition of the hand, which by another name is called Confirmation; because through it the Holy Spirit is given for increase and strength." C. un. de Sacr. unct. - Each thing, imposition of the hand and anointing, is had from Sacred Scripture: Acts 8:17; 19:6; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 John 2:27. For these places are understood by several Fathers of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

You will resolve: Confirmation would be invalid if the anointing is done by means of an instrument. Holy Office, Jan. 14, 1885. - Likewise it is invalid if, instead of on the forehead, it is done on the mouth. - But although it ought to be done with the right thumb of the bishop, nevertheless the anointing would be valid if it were done with another finger of the bishop, and even if it were the finger of the left hand. Yet the bishop would sin if he did this without necessity; for he would act against the universal practice of the Church, although it does not appear that inversion of the said ceremony reaches grave fault. S. R. C., May 7, 1853; L. 165.

Are olive oil and balsam of the necessity of the sacrament? - "It is certain that oil is of the necessity of the sacrament... And it must be olive oil... But whether balsam also is of the necessity of the sacrament, the first opinion denies...; the second opinion, more common and more probable, affirms... But it is certain that neither opinion is of faith, nor certain; hence the sacrament is altogether to be conferred with oil and balsam, and otherwise it would be at least doubtful... And therefore confirmation given with oil alone would have to be repeated at least conditionally. Conversely, because the first opinion is sufficiently probable, at the point of death confirmation can well be conferred conditionally from oil alone, if chrism confected also from balsam cannot be had; for the great utility of this sacrament would be a just cause for ministering it conditionally." L. 162. A privilege was granted to the Indians by Paul IV and by Pius V of using another liquid, which is not balsam, although by them it is called balsam. But it is certain that balsam is required by necessity of precept. L. H. A. tr. 14, n. 39. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Catechism 7-9; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 2.

Must chrism necessarily be blessed? - It must be affirmed absolutely, if the discussion is about necessity of precept. It must altogether be affirmed also, if the discussion is about necessity of sacrament. For this is urged by the constant practice of the Church and the Decree of Eugene IV, in which it is read that the matter of confirmation is chrism blessed by the bishop. St. Alphonsus H. A. tr. 14, n. 39 says: "The remote matter of confirmation is chrism confected from balsam and oil through the blessing of the bishop, to distinguish it from the oil of baptism and of the sick, as Innocent XI distinguished in C. Cum venisset, de Sacr. unct. But whether one of these oils is valid matter for another sacrament, Suarez, Laymann, and Henriquez deny, but Bellarmine, Castro Palao, Bonacina, and Barbosa more probably affirm." L. 163; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 3; E. M.

Must chrism necessarily be of that year? - This is not required by necessity of sacrament, because whether it is old or new, the matter is not changed; but it is required from the precept of the Church. Hence a bishop would sin gravely who confirmed with old chrism. For to this end new chrism is consecrated on the Supper of the Lord, the old having been burned. - L. 163.

What is the form of confirmation? - Just as the total adequate matter of confirmation is the anointing of chrism applied through the hand of the bishop, so the total form is the words which the bishop pronounces while anointing: I sign you with the sign of the cross, and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 4; L. 167 IV.

When the bishop says: N., I sign you, etc., another name of a Saint can be imposed on the one to be confirmed, besides the baptismal name. S. C. R., Sept. 20, 1749, n. 2404; E. M. 404.

What words of this form are essential? - For validity the following are altogether essential: 1. The words signo and confirmo, unless they are supplied by another synonymous word. 2. The expression of the Most Holy Trinity, as in baptism. 3. The word te, by which the subject of the sacrament is designated. 4. The words signo crucis, and also the words chrismate salutis.

But to say corroboro for confirmo, or sanctificationis for salutis, would be only an accidental change. The words signo te signo crucis signify the sacramental action, and by them there is indicated the sign or standard which is given to the soldier of Christ for spiritual combat. Confirmo te chrismate salutis signify the spiritual strength which is conferred upon a man through the sacrament of visible matter for salvation, namely through the sacred anointing of chrism. In nomine etc. signify the cause conferring the fullness of spiritual strength. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Catechism 11, 12; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 4; L. 168.

Is the form used among the Greeks valid: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit? - Resp. In the affirmative with the common opinion of theologians. For the sense is: by this sign, which I confer upon you, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given, with the verb omitted, according to the custom of the Greeks. But the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, while in the Latin Church it is had after the anointing, is had in the Greek Church in the preceding prayer. Otherwise one would have to say that the Greeks do not have the sacrament of confirmation, which is very hard. Moreover, this is clear from the Declaration of Benedict XIV in the encyclical letter Ex quo primum to the Bishops of the Greek rite, March 1, 1756. - L. 164, 169.

Who is the minister of confirmation? - Only the bishop is the ordinary minister of this sacrament. Thus Innocent III declared, and Trent sess. 7, c. 3. - A simple priest can confirm as extraordinary minister from special delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, or from his commission conferring fullness of power. This is clear from the practice of the Church. Greek or Oriental presbyters, from most ancient custom, confirm in baptism itself; and they validly confirm also outside baptism. Yet those places are excepted from which the Holy See has taken away this faculty, which consequently is not in Italy and the adjacent Islands, in Bulgaria, in Cyprus, and among the Maronites of Lebanon. Cf. Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, May 27, 1742. Likewise confirmations of this kind are held valid, although done by schismatics, for from those as if tolerated jurisdiction was not taken away. Benedict XIV, Const. Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745; Const. Anno vertente, June 18, 1759; A. S. S. v. 25, p. 439. But the priest must use chrism blessed by the bishop. This is clear from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said that the matter of confirmation is chrism blessed by the bishop. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; St. Thomas Suppl. q. 38, a. 1; Quodl. 11, a. 7; 3 p., q. 72, a. 11; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 7, 8, 9; Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 6, 7; L. 170; E. M.

From the Constitution of Pius X Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, concerning the Ruthenian Rite in the United States of North America, art. 14: "It is altogether forbidden to Ruthenian priests dwelling in America to sign the baptized with sacred chrism; and if they shall do otherwise, let them know that they have acted invalidly." But in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Aug. 18, 1913, concerning the Ruthenian Rite in the Canadian Region, the aforesaid article is omitted. And it is also omitted in another Decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Aug. 17, 1914 [text/OCR reads: 1904], concerning the Greco-Ruthenian Rite in the United States of North America.

Can the Pope delegate even to a simple priest the power of confecting chrism? - It is controverted. Not a few affirm; but several others deny. The same controversy exists for the oil of extreme unction. But it is clear that the oil of extreme unction is validly blessed by Greek presbyters. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 8, c. 1, n. 4. The blessing of a priest in each sacrament, without delegation of the Pope, is invalid. - L. 163, 709; E. M.

Can a bishop confirm faithful persons who are not his subjects? - As regards validity, he can confirm all, as follows from the power of order. - As regards liceity, he cannot confirm except those who are found in his diocese; and he would sin gravely by confirming even his own subjects in another diocese while exercising pontificals there, because then confirmation is judged an exercise of jurisdiction of the external forum, which cannot be performed without permission of the Ordinary of the place. But he can confirm strangers in his own diocese, which has been introduced by custom and by the tacit consent of bishops. - Holy Office, Apr. 19, 1899; L. 173.

An Abbot nullius, having the privilege of confirming the faithful, cannot confirm subjects of another in another diocese, even with the consent of the bishops.

When is a bishop bound to confirm? - He is bound to confirm those asking, whenever he conveniently can, if he cannot defer it to another near time. - He is also bound sometimes to provide opportunity to his subjects of receiving this sacrament. Hence he would sin gravely if he abstained for a long time from conferring confirmation, e.g., for eight or ten years, and did not go around the diocese, at least through the principal places, unless he were excused by moral impossibility. - "But if a just cause is present, he does not sin who defers for three or more years." L. 175. - La Croix 388.

Does a bishop sin gravely by omitting to confirm a dying person asking for the sacrament? - Since this sacrament is not necessary for salvation, not to go to the dying in order to confirm them, because it is not without inconvenience, is light; and where this custom prevails, not even light. - L. 175; La Croix 390; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 10, n. 8; l. 13, c. 19, n. 5.

Who is the subject of confirmation? - It is every and only baptized man not yet confirmed, although lacking the use of reason. For confirmation perfects the spiritual life which is received in baptism, and it was instituted for all, as baptism was. - Yet from the practice generally prevailing in the Church, children who have not yet attained the use of reason are not to be confirmed, unless the legitimate custom of places brings this about, as for example prevails among the Greeks and in Spain. Benedict XIV, Const. Eo quamvis § 6. - "It is certain among all that infants are licitly confirmed if just causes accede, namely danger of death, absence of the bishop, etc." L. 178.

"If the twelfth year does not seem to have to be awaited, certainly it is most fitting to defer this sacrament until the seventh." Roman Catechism 18. Nor must it be awaited that children be confirmed only after first Communion. Leo XIII, Brief, June 22, 1897. - "Even to those about to die this sacrament is to be given... Even confirmed children who die obtain greater glory, just as here also they obtain greater grace." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 8 ad 4. - Speaking about the insane, Benedict XIV says that confirmation must altogether be ministered to them. L. 178. Even the perpetually insane are licitly confirmed. L. 180. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7, c. 10, n. 5, 8; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 8; E. M.

What is the necessity and obligation of receiving confirmation, and of what kind is it? - "It is not necessary for salvation by necessity of means, nor of itself by necessity of precept. This is common with St. Thomas and others against Scotus and Sylvester. The reason is both because the Church does not urge its reception by any penalties, and because neither from Scripture, nor Tradition, nor the end or institution of the sacrament is such a precept gathered.

And the canons which are brought forward to the contrary are sufficiently explained of necessity for better being." Busembaum 181. - "The precept which is had in Trent sess. 23, c. 4 de R. does not bind all, since it is hypothetical; but only those to be ordained, or to be initiated with first tonsure. Henriquez, Valentia, Suarez, and Navarrus teach against Tanner that its omission is not mortal; and Navarrus adds that not even a bishop sins mortally by ordaining one not confirmed, or if he himself, not confirmed, ordains." Busembaum 183.

According to St. Liguori there is an obligation under grave obligation from divine precept, at least in the course of life and when a suitable occasion is given; and he proves this from the Declaration of Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, concerning the rites and dogmas of the Greeks, where he says, § 3, n. 4: "They are to be warned by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by the guilt of grave sin if, when they can approach confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." These words of Benedict XIV do not seem to conclude for all; because the Pontiff speaks only of those invalidly confirmed by Greek presbyters, who therefore refused to approach confirmation again because they held the first as valid. Whence there was here a particular reason of obliging them to receive the sacrament of confirmation, namely so that they would thus retract the error. And this is confirmed from Benedict XIV himself, de Syn. l. 7, c. 10, n. 9, which work was published after that Constitution, c. 9, n. 4. Wherefore the law is doubtful. Yet the opinion of St. Alphonsus is handed down in the Instruction issued by authority of S. C. de P. F., May 4, 1774, and inserted into the Roman Ritual. But the common opinion of St. Thomas is handed down, on the contrary, in the Instruction of the Holy Office, June 20, 1866, for the Apostolic Vicar to the Gallas. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 8; Suppl. q. 29, a. 3 ad 3; E. M.

What is to be done in doubt whether someone has been confirmed? - He can be confirmed again conditionally, cf. 345, 346. But he is not bound to this if he truly probably believes that he has already received the sacrament. - L. H. A. 48.

What dispositions are required in those to be confirmed? - 1. The baptismal character for the validity of the sacrament, and in an adult the intention of receiving the sacrament of confirmation for the strength of his soul. Cf. 381; Holy Office, Apr. 10, 1861; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 1213. 2. The state of grace, because confirmation is a sacrament of the living. Wherefore he who is conscious of mortal sin must have recourse to the sacrament of penance, unless he is perfectly contrite. The general custom is that no one be confirmed unless he presents a certificate signed with the autograph of the pastor. 3. That the one to be confirmed be imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, especially those which are of necessity of means, and which regard the sacraments of penance and confirmation. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; E. M.

Must the one to be confirmed be fasting? - Resp. In the negative, considering present-day custom. For the canonical laws which prescribed fasting for receiving confirmation have fallen into desuetude. For this reason also the use has prevailed of conferring that sacrament in the evening time. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; L. 184; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 6, 7.

What about the various prescriptions concerning the administration of confirmation? - The rite to be observed by a bishop is had in the Roman Pontifical; but the manner to be observed by a simple priest administering this sacrament is had in the Instruction of S. C. de P. F., May 4, 1774. - "Confirmation can be conferred on any day whatever," L. 184, "and at any time whatever," L. 174. "But probably it can be ministered without grave sin in some decent place, even outside the Church," L. 174, 184, even in churches of regulars. Benedict XIV, Const. Confirmandis § 6. "The bishop must be clothed with amice over the rochet, or with surplice if he is a Religious, and with stole, white cope, miter, and staff... They more truly say that to omit all the aforesaid instruments is mortal..., otherwise if only some one is omitted... It must be noted as regards the staff, that it suffices that the staff remain publicly exposed, or be held by a cleric... Likewise the Sacred Congregation declared that it suffices that the bishop confirm without miter, with only the stole used... It must be noted that the omission of the slap, scandal being excluded, is never mortal..., they deny that omission of the candle can ever be mortal." L. 134; Roman Pontifical.

Moreover, outside the case of necessity, under grave obligation a sponsor is required, and of the same sex, Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; Instruction of S. C. de Pr. F., May 4, 1774; and only one, designated by the parents or by the bishop in their defect, who, as regards validity, must have been confirmed; besides, he must be different from the baptismal sponsor, at least outside necessity. The sponsor contracts spiritual kinship with the confirmed person and his parents, provided however that he touches him. He also contracts the obligation of instructing the confirmed person as regards those things which pertain to faith and morals, if the confirmed person has not been instructed and another is lacking. Trent sess. 24, c. 2 de R. M. - But a religious cannot be sponsor unless the one to be confirmed is likewise a religious. Cf. 441 ff. - As regards the manner of receiving in confirmation, it is prescribed in the Roman Pontifical that the one to be confirmed place his foot upon the right foot of the sponsor; but today received custom has that it suffices that the sponsor place the right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed. S. R. C., Sept. 20, 1749, ad 6, n. 2404; L. 187.

The forehead of the confirmed person is to be bound with a linen band, marked with a cross, and thus to remain until the chrism dries or is wiped away. But today by desuetude this ceremony is no longer in use in our parts, since immediately after the anointing the forehead of the confirmed person is wiped. L. 188. - "The common blessing, which is given by the bishop to those confirmed at the end, is not necessary for the sacrament, but is a simple ceremony, as the doctors commonly say. Hence Tamburini probably says that the admonition which is made, that those confirmed not depart before the aforesaid blessing, does not seem to oblige." L. ib. - Roman Pontifical, de Confirm.; L. 185-188; H. A. 50-52; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 72, a. 10, 12; E. M.

The names of those confirmed and of the sponsors are to be recorded in the parish books.

There is required 4. that he be confirmed. Trent, sess. 23, C. 4, de Ref. But is this required under grave precept? Some affirm, others judge that this is not of precept, but of counsel, others commonly and more probably say that it is required under light obligation because of light disorder. L. 786. "By congruity," says St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 34, a. 4, "the character of order presupposes the character of confirmation, and not by necessity." Nevertheless the S. C. C., Sept. 27, 1601, declared that one initiated in first tonsure and minor orders before confirmation was received had been "badly promoted, had acquired a benefice less legitimately, and needed a new provision, nor could he ascend to sacred orders unless with a previous dispensation of the Apostolic See." Benedict XIV, Constitution Eo quamvis tempore, § 19.

2. Confirmation is lawful, even solemnly; but again by no means conferred by one specially interdicted, or in favor of one who has been specially interdicted, unless he first makes satisfaction, or, if he cannot, furnishes security concerning making satisfaction, or, if he can do neither, swears that he will make satisfaction when he can. C. Responso 43, de Sent. exc.; C. Quoniam 19, ibid., in VI; C. Alma 24, ibid.; C. Clerici 3, de Cler. exc. min.; C. Latores 4, ibid.; Schmalzgrueber, n. 352.

1. Andrew, a Greek, doubts about the value of his confirmation. For when he was dwelling among Latins he heard from a certain Latin presbyter that the chrism of confirmation is confected only from olive oil and balsam. But when he himself was confirmed in Greece, he heard that sacred chrism is confected from several sweet-smelling materials.

Quaer. Whether Andrew was validly confirmed, if other sweet-smelling aromatics were mixed into the chrism?

R. Affirmatively. For in the Euchologion of the Greeks, or Ritual, or Sacerdotal and Pontifical, this Admonition is contained: "It must be known that although the Pontiffs of the Eastern Church, in confecting sacred chrism, customarily use several aromatics, nevertheless the necessary matter of the sacrament is oil and balsam, to which, according to the custom of the ancient Eastern Church, other kinds of aromatics are rightly admixed, if they are present according to the prescription. But if some of them are lacking, provided oil and balsam are present, holy chrism is altogether duly confected, as with things not necessary to the matter of chrism." Benedict XIV, C. Ex quo primum, 1 March 1756, § 44, reports the aforesaid Admonition; and in § 49 he says that it "pertains to holy chrism, which indeed is confected by the Greeks not only with oil and balsam, but with other aromatics also admixed. But in this part of the admonition anyone can see that a mixture of aromatics of this kind is not indeed forbidden, but only that this is taught to be held: that the matter of the sacrament consists in oil and balsam, and therefore, if any one of the other aromatics customarily admixed is lacking, nothing is lacking which is necessary for confecting sacred chrism." Therefore, because the Greeks mix other aromatics into chrism, the matter of confirmation does not thereby become unsuitable. Wherefore Andrew was validly and also licitly confirmed with the aforesaid chrism according to the rite of the Eastern Church.

2. Joseph holds that the imposition of hands does not pertain to the essential matter of confirmation. Indeed, he says, the Greek Church does not use the imposition of hands. Benedict XIV, C. Ex quo primum § 50. D'Annib. 279.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. The imposition of hands is altogether essential to the sacrament of confirmation. For the Apostles themselves are read to have used it for conferring the Holy Spirit. Acts 18 and 19. Likewise, the Fathers testify concerning its continued use in the Church from the age of the Apostles. Nor indeed does the Greek Church dissent. For this essential imposition of hands is that which is annexed to chrismation, and the Greek Church itself certainly uses it in precisely the manner in which the Latin Church uses it. Hence Michael Palaeologus, in the profession of faith which in the year 1274 he sent to Gregory X, expressly says: "Another is the sacrament of confirmation, which bishops confer through the imposition of hands, by chrismating those reborn." Wherefore Benedict XIV, l. c., indeed excludes an imposition of hands distinct from chrismation, but by no means also one indistinct and included in the chrismation itself. For through this the chrismation is made. But another imposition of hands is not necessary. Theol. Wirceburg. 142. seqq., I. M. 475. 476.

3. Joseph, a bishop, holds that in the form of confirmation only these words are substantial: I confirm you with the chrism of salvation. Hence in the administration of this sacrament he has no scruple if through inadvertence he omits the other words. For the former words signify the character, which the form is not accustomed to signify. But the Greek Church does not use the latter words. D'Annib. 280.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Joseph does not act rightly. For the common opinion holds that all the words of confirmation are necessary. Wherefore, by omitting the remaining words, he exposes the sacrament to danger of nullity. But the former words: I sign you with the sign of the cross, do not signify the character, but the sacramental action itself, or chrismation, just as in baptism the word baptize signifies the sacramental action itself, or ablution. But the latter words are not altogether lacking in the form of the Greeks. For, as in the form of the Latins those words indicate the cause conferring the fullness of spiritual strength, which is the Holy Trinity, and which is expressed when it is said: In the name of the Father, etc.; so in the form of the Greeks, through those words of the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is signified the grace strengthening one for confessing the faith bravely, and the cause of this, the Holy Spirit. Theol. Wirceburg. 178.-188., I. M. 481. 483.

1. Andrew, a Greek, confirmed by a Greek presbyter in Greece, since he is now staying in Italy, is uncertain about the validity of his confirmation, and asks whether he can be confirmed again by a Latin bishop.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Andrew cannot be confirmed again by a Latin bishop. For he was validly confirmed by a Greek presbyter. The ordinary minister of confirmation is indeed the bishop alone; and, from legitimate delegation, any presbyter. Trid. c. 7. c. 3., Benedict XIV, C. Eo quamvis § 8. This delegation is reserved to the Holy See. But whether it is reserved to the Holy See by ecclesiastical law only or by divine law is not equally certain. As may be seen in the Collectanea S. C. de P. F. n. 669. seqq., the faculty is granted to Vicars Apostolic of delegating simple presbyters to administer the sacrament of confirmation. But from the most remote antiquity Greek or Eastern presbyters confirm, in baptism itself, those whom they baptize. It is indubitable that confirmations of this kind are licit and valid where the Holy See has not later disapproved them, as among the Bulgarians, Italo-Greeks, etc. Benedict XIV, C. Anno vertente, 18 June 1759. They are ratified, moreover, even though they have been performed by schismatics. For, since they were as it were tolerated, after the Photian schism jurisdiction in this matter was not taken away. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 674. seqq. It is likewise indubitable that Greeks validly confirm even outside baptism. Wherefore Andrew's confirmation is to be held as altogether valid. - D'Annib. 282., Theol. Virceburg. 195. seqq., Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7. c. 7.

2. John, a missionary, while giving spiritual exercises in one of his Christian communities, with a great crowd of Christians running together from every side, is called to confirm a little girl near death in a place rather distant, so that he would have to interrupt the mission to its great detriment.

Quaer. Whether John is bound to confirm the dying person, as in the Case?

R. Negatively. For the missionary, an extraordinary minister of confirmation by pontifical delegation, cannot be bound more than the bishop, the ordinary minister. Moreover, bishops are excused from confirming the dying where there is inconvenience. Cf. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 175., La-Croix. l. 6. p. 1. n. 388. 390.

3. Ernest, a missionary, administering the sacrament of confirmation by delegation of the Holy See, is accustomed to use a rochet, miter, pastoral staff, ring, and pectoral cross. Does he act rightly?

R. Ernest does not act rightly. If he is not marked with the episcopal character, or if at least the use of pontificals does not belong to him from a true and legitimate privilege, he ought to administer confirmation in church clothed in sacerdotal vestments, or at least clothed with alb and stole. But if he administers confirmation outside a church or oratory in private houses less solemnly, he should not omit using at least the stole, if he cannot have a surplice. S. C. de P. F. 23. Apr. 1774., 4 May 1774. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 665.666.

4. "The triple sign of the cross which is made by the confirming bishop over the one confirmed, while he pronounces the words, in the name of the Father: ought it to be made with the thumb upon the forehead of the one confirmed, or simply with the hand, without contact with the forehead, over the person confirmed?

R. According to the Pontifical, while he anoints the forehead with chrism he ought to say: I sign you with the sign of the cross, making the sign upon the forehead itself with the thumb; and when this has been done, with the hand extended toward the one confirmed, he begins: In the name of the Father, etc., forming the sign of the cross three times in the customary manner." S. R. C. 7 May 1853. n. 3012.

5. "In the administration of the sacrament of confirmation nothing stands in the way of your committing the wiping away of the sacred chrism to acolytes, in the absence of a priest or of another constituted in sacred orders, since no general decree prohibits this, especially when necessity is urgent." From the Letters of S. C. de P. F. 20 May 1786 to the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Tonkin.

6. Peter, a missionary, called to confirm a certain adolescent in some Christian community, seeing that there is no man there who may fulfill the office of sponsor, commands a virgin catechist to fulfill the office of sponsor-woman. - Does he act rightly?

R. In the administration of confirmation a sponsor is required, who ought to be one, confirmed, and of the same sex. But confirmation can licitly be conferred without a sponsor, if one is not available. Wherefore Peter would have done better if he had administered confirmation with no sponsor employed. Cf. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 185. 187., Enchir. Moral. 494., I. M. 494. But could Peter himself not have performed the office of sponsor? To S. C. de P. F., 21 Sept. 1843, the doubt was proposed: "Whether it is lawful for priests who administer the sacrament of confirmation to act at the same time as sponsors"; and it answered: "It is not to be tolerated."

7. Anastasius, a missionary enjoying the faculty of administering confirmation, administers it to all infants in the place of the mission where he himself is staying, immediately after baptism. - Does he act rightly?

R. Anastasius, speaking per se, does not act rightly. This is clearly proved from the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis, 4 May 1745: "Although among the western Churches the simultaneous conferral of baptism and confirmation was sometimes established in custom, and this custom in former time had grown up in some dioceses... nevertheless, this custom having been entirely abrogated by the Roman Church, mother and teacher of the others, by the most prudent decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs it has been providently provided that the sacrament of confirmation be conferred on those reborn from the font of baptism only at that age in which the faithful, having put away the things that belonged to a child, would understand that baptism and confirmation differ from each other as much as, in natural life, generation differs from growth; and that they themselves had indeed been received into the militia through baptism, but through confirmation had been strengthened for battle and instructed by grace to bear contests." But a far lesser age is required for admitting persons to the sacrament of confirmation than for admitting them to first communion, as the Roman Catechism 18 hands down, and Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 7. c. 10. n. 2. 3, teaches. S. C. C. 19 Nov. 1854., I. M. 489.

Nevertheless, sometimes confirmation can be conferred, for a just cause, even on those younger than seven years, as St. Charles hands down in Conc. Mediol. 5. tit. Quae ad Confirm. Sacr. pertinet: "If the bishop, because of some just and indeed necessary cause, should sometimes judge that it is to be ministered to a little child and infant who not only does not complete the age of years, but does not even reach it, let it not be forbidden." Cf. Cas. Bon. Dioec. year 1786. Month of Oct. Cas. 3.

8. Elodia, a matron rather careless about Christian duties, reached an advanced age without having received the sacrament of confirmation, although she had rather often had the opportunity of receiving it. Her confessor indeed several times induced her, when a new opportunity was given, to arm herself with so great a sacrament; nevertheless, he feared to urge her under grave obligation, lest, with the law neglected, she would thereby sin more gravely. And so it happened that the woman a little afterward died without the help of confirmation, though fortified with the other sacraments.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. According to all, the sacrament of confirmation is not necessary by necessity of means. But whether it is necessary by necessity of precept is disputed. "It is a question," says D'Annib. 283., "whether this sacrament is necessary by necessity of precept; some deny it, others affirm it and think it is grave: therefore the law is doubtful." Cf. I. M. 490. "But while the controversy of theologians stands, Elodia was not to be urged under grave obligation to receive the sacrament of confirmation, but only to be exhorted to this. Therefore the confessor acted rightly by abstaining from declaring a grave obligation. Indeed, even if the divine obligation were established, the confessor would still have acted prudently, since there was room for fear that the woman would not satisfy the declared obligation and would incur greater detriment of soul. For not all obligations by which the faithful are bound are always to be opened at once; rather, several are sometimes prudently to be passed over by the confessor, when it is foreseen that the penitent will not satisfy his duty." G. 246.

260. • Confirmation is defined: A Sacrament of the new law, by which, through an anointing with chrism, under a certain form of words, there is given to the baptized the fullness of the Holy Spirit, for firmly believing and for intrepidly confessing the Faith.

It is clear that Confirmation is a true Sacrament distinct from Baptism: 1. from the definition of the Church. For thus Eugene IV in the Decree of Faith: Through Baptism we are spiritually reborn; through Confirmation we are increased in grace and strengthened in faith. - See also Trent, sess. 7, can. 1, on Confirmation; 2. from the fact that there are found in it the three things essentially required and sufficient for every Sacrament, namely an exterior rite, the promise of grace, and the institution of Christ. For: 1. the exterior rite is had in the things and words, or in the matter and form; 2. the promise and conferral of grace is had in Acts 8.17, where it is said that Peter and John, sent to Samaria to confirm the faithful already baptized, laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit; 3. the divine institution is sufficiently understood from the power itself by which the Apostles, after Baptism, conferred the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands; for they could not do this from their own virtue.

But when this Sacrament was instituted is not established. More probably it was instituted after the resurrection, when Christ said to the Apostles (John 20.21): As the living Father sent me, so I send you, etc., by which words he conferred on them full episcopal power over the mystical body of the Church. According to others, Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation at the supper, after the institution itself of the Eucharist.

We must treat: 1. of the matter and form of Confirmation; 2. of its Minister; 3. of the subject of the same.

2. CONFIRMATION. —The Sacrament of Confirmation bestows the grace to be "a good soldier of Christ Jesus,"¹¹ to profess the Catholic faith courageously, and never under any circumstances to deny it. Hence all who are able to receive this Sacrament are in duty bound to do so.¹² Culpable neglect in this matter exposes one to great spiritual danger and is a mortal sin if inspired by formal contempt for the Sacrament or accompanied by grievous scandal, or when there is proximate danger of losing faith or charity.

¹¹ 2 Tim. II, 3. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 1 and 7.

¹² Codex Iuris Can., can. 787.

Bishops are under a grave obligation of affording the faithful an opportunity to receive this Sacrament at least once every five years.¹³

¹³ Ibid., can. 785, § 3 sq.

Each person confirmed ought to have a separate sponsor, whose obligations are similar to those assumed by the sponsor at Baptism.¹⁴

¹⁴ Codex Iuris Can., can. 794, 797.

There is no obligation either to administer or to receive this Sacrament fasting, though, according to St. Thomas, "where it can conveniently be done, it is more becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting."¹⁵

¹⁵ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 72, art. 12, ad 2: "Because of the multitude of the faithful and the dangers that threaten, it is tolerated that this Sacrament, which can be given only by bishops, be given or received even by those who are not fasting, because one bishop, especially in a large diocese, would not suffice to confirm so many people if their time were restricted. Yet where it can suitably be observed, it is more fitting that it be given and received by those who are fasting."

(cc. 780-800)

Utility. - Certainly the immediately practical utility of the Treatise on Confirmation is less for individual priests; for this reason it is customarily set forth briefly. Yet theological knowledge of this sacrament is such as greatly increases estimation of this sacrament, which today is very expedient. For through confirmation Christians are ordered to carrying on warfare for Christ. But how much does it contribute to the private good of individuals and the common good of all that strong soldiers be at hand for Christ?

— Appendix III belongs to this section. Historical-Liturgical on Confirmation. Cf. Appendix III.

Besides the authors cited above concerning baptism, the following may be consulted: Heimbucher, Die heilige Firmung (Augsburg 1889); Dölger, Das Sakrament der Firmung (Wien 1906); Laur. Janssen, O.S.B., La confirmation. Exposé dogmatique, historique et liturgique (Lille 1885).

We divide this treatise into five chapters: 1. on the notion, existence, and effects of confirmation; 2. on its matter and form; 3. on its minister; 4. on its subject; 5. on its ceremonies.

162. 1. The ceremonies prescribed in the Pontifical are to be observed, and those which certainly or even probably pertain to the validity of the sacrament bind under grave obligation, for example, the anointing upon the forehead and in the form of a cross.

Confirmation is ordinarily to be administered in a church or public chapel with solemnity, that is, with miter and crozier. But when a reasonable cause exists, for example, the illness of the person to be confirmed, the bishop, wearing a rochet and stole, or even clothed with the pastoral stole alone, can confer it in any decent place, on any day and at any hour.⁸³ A bishop can confer confirmation even in exempt places of his diocese.⁸⁴

The ceremony of the blow on the cheek does not bind under grave obligation.⁸⁵

In confirmation a person can, but is not bound to, impose upon himself another name besides that received in baptism.⁸⁶

When a duly delegated priest administers the sacrament of confirmation, he cannot use pontifical insignia unless he already possesses this privilege from another source.⁸⁷ The ceremonies to be observed by him were formerly indicated in the Instruction For a Simple Priest Administering the Sacrament of Confirmation by Delegation of the Apostolic See, issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on May 4, 1774.⁸⁸ A new Instruction of the same name was issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments at Pentecost 1934 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXVII, 11 sqq.).

⁸³ Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, December 7, 1626, and Holy Office, February 12, 1851.

⁸⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 792.

⁸⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 184.

⁸⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 20, 1749.

⁸⁷ Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, April 23, 1774.

⁸⁸ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 503.

163. 2. A sponsor is required in confirmation under pain of grave sin, just as in baptism. Thus the common opinion.⁸⁹ A case of grave necessity is excepted, namely, when a legitimate sponsor cannot be had.⁹⁰ There is to be only one sponsor for each person to be confirmed, and therefore two are not permitted as in baptism. A sponsor is to present only one or two persons to be confirmed, unless otherwise seems good to the minister for a just cause.⁹¹

The conditions required on the part of the sponsor for validity are:

a) That the sponsor have the intention of performing the office of sponsor and consequently have attained the use of reason. This is evident.

b) That the sponsor be designated either by the person to be confirmed himself, or by his parents or guardians, or, if these are lacking, by the minister or pastor.

c) That the sponsor himself be confirmed. Thus it is established from the Code of Canon Law, c. 795, and from the Roman Pontifical, which states: "No one who has not been confirmed can be a sponsor in confirmation." Hence it would be a grave sin if an unconfirmed person wished to act as sponsor in confirmation.^91a

d) That in the very act of confirmation the sponsor physically touch the person to be confirmed, either personally or through a proxy. In ancient times the person to be confirmed placed his right foot upon the sponsor's right foot; now, however, custom has prevailed that the sponsor place his right hand upon the right shoulder of the person to be confirmed.

e) That the sponsor be a Catholic and neither enrolled in a heretical or schismatic sect nor marked by any of the penalties concerning which something was said above in n. 145, 2.

f) That the sponsor not be the father, mother, or spouse of the person to be confirmed.

The conditions required on the part of the sponsor for liceity are:⁹²

a) That the sponsor be someone other than the baptismal sponsor, unless a reasonable cause, in the judgment of the minister, counsels otherwise, or confirmation is legitimately conferred immediately after baptism.

b) That the sponsor be of the same sex as the person to be confirmed, unless otherwise seems good to the minister in particular cases for a reasonable cause.

c) That the same things prescribed for a baptismal sponsor above in n. 147 be observed; for example, that the sponsor have attained the fourteenth year of age and not be a religious or constituted in sacred orders.

⁸⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 185, and Holy Office, September 5, 1877 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1480). Because of the authority of the Holy Office, the opposite opinion is not probable.

⁹⁰ Cf. Acta et Decreta Concilii plenarii Americae Latinae (1899), n. 517.

⁹¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 794.

^91a Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 186.

⁹² Code of Canon Law, c. 796.

164. Scholion. On recording a conferred confirmation. The pastor is to enter the names of the minister, the confirmed persons, their parents and sponsors, and the day and place of the confirmation in a special book; furthermore, he is to note in the book of the baptized that confirmation was conferred.⁹³ If the proper pastor of the confirmed person was not present, he is to be informed of the conferred confirmation as soon as possible by the minister of confirmation or his delegate.⁹⁴

⁹³ Cf. the form for recording confirmed persons in the Roman Ritual, tit. 12, cc. 1 and 3, and Code of Canon Law, c. 798.

⁹⁴ Ibid., c. 799.

We must treat: 1. of the nature; 2. of the minister and subject; 3. of the ceremonies of Confirmation.

We shall speak: 1. of the notion and effect of Confirmation; 2. of the matter and form by which it is constituted.

1491. DEFINITION. Confirmation, a certain perfection and consummation of Baptism, can be thus defined: A Sacrament instituted by Christ, in which, through imposition of hands and through an anointing of chrism, under a certain form of words, made on the forehead of the baptized person, an increase of sanctifying grace is conferred, and singular strength for firmly holding and intrepidly professing the faith.⁸

I. It is of faith, against Luther and Calvin, that Confirmation is a true and proper Sacrament. This is established from Trent, sess. 7, can. 1, on Confirmation: "If anyone shall say that the Confirmation of the baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper Sacrament: let him be anathema." It is also proved from Scripture (Acts 8:15, 17), where it is read that when Peter and John had come to the believers of Samaria, "they prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Then they laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit." For here there is had: 1. an exterior rite, in the imposition of hands and prayer; 2. the conferral of grace, because all received the Holy Spirit; therefore sanctifying grace: for graces gratis given were not conceded to all, as is established from 1 Corinthians 7; 3. divine institution, which is sufficiently understood from the effect, since it belongs to divine power alone to raise inanimate things to that dignity that they produce grace in us.

Concerning the TIME at which this Sacrament was instituted, there exists controversy among theologians. Yet more commonly, it is believed to have been instituted on the night of the Supper, in which Christ the Lord taught the Apostles to make chrism; as is gathered from Apostolic tradition, and from the practice of the Church consecrating chrism on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord.⁹

1492. II. The EFFECTS of Confirmation are: 1. Character, by which the Christian is enrolled in the army of Christ. 2. Sanctifying grace, that is, the increase of the same grace with increase of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit; per accidens first grace can also be produced, as was said (n. 1395).¹⁰ 3. Sacramental grace, which is grace perfecting and strengthening the Christian for the intrepid profession of faith and Christian life against any enemies whatever of the faith and against the temptations of the devil and the world. Whence St. Thomas says:¹¹ "In this Sacrament the Holy Spirit is given for strength, as He was given to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost." There is also had, from canon law, as in Baptism, a secondary effect, namely: 4. Spiritual relationship, which is contracted both between the one confirming and the confirmed and his father and mother, and between the sponsor and the one received and his father and mother (cf. nn. 1504, 1506).

1493. Principles. I. The REMOTE matter of Confirmation is chrism made from olive oil and balsam, and blessed by a Bishop. This is established both from the Council of Florence in the decree of Eugene IV and from perpetual tradition and use of the Church. Wherefore we say:

1. OIL is of the necessity of the Sacrament, and indeed expressed from olives, as St. Thomas teaches,¹² because this is properly oil, through which is signified the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is poured out from Christ our Head into us.

2. BALSAM, by which is designated the good odor of Christ and immunity from the corruption of vices, is required by precept, and more probably also by necessity of the Sacrament. For it is said that those to be confirmed are to be anointed with chrism; but chrism denotes oil mixed with balsam. Yet the opposite opinion is also probable: wherefore, in a case of necessity, Confirmation can be administered with oil alone, for example with the oil of catechumens or of the sick, but under condition. But balsam of any region suffices, whether Palestinian or Indian, provided it is in such quantity that it gives its odor, although it is not mixed with each part of the oil.¹³

3. That chrism, by necessity of precept, must be BLESSED by a BISHOP is certain, and is established from the perpetual practice of the Church. But whether this blessing of a Bishop is of the very necessity of the Sacrament is indeed disputed, but the common and safer opinion, and therefore the one to be followed, affirms, from the decree of Eugene IV, where the matter of Confirmation is said to be chrism blessed by a Bishop. Yet the opinion which teaches that balsam can also be blessed by a simple priest, by permission of the Roman Pontiff, is not improbable. But chrism ought, from the precept of the Church, to be new, that is, of that year. Hence he who uses old chrism sins gravely; yet the Supreme Pontiff sometimes dispenses from this precept, when, for example, a simple priest must confirm in a distant region.¹⁴

1494. II. The PROXIMATE matter of Confirmation is the anointing of chrism made by the imposition of the Bishop's hand. Thus more commonly and more truly. But because there is a twofold imposition of hands in Confirmation, one which is premised to the anointing and is had when the Bishop extends his hands over those to be confirmed, invoking the Holy Spirit; the other, which is indistinct from the action of the Bishop's hand anointing the forehead: therefore theologians are not lacking who with Aureolus and Sambovius say that the first imposition, and not the second, is the matter of Confirmation; while others with Merbesius, Concina, etc., contend that each is necessary. Against these, St. Alphonsus in a longer dissertation demonstrates that the third opinion is most certain, and therefore to be held in practice, namely the opinion of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others, which places the adequate, total, and necessary matter of Confirmation altogether in chrismation by the hand of the Bishop, or in the imposition of hands which is joined with the anointing of chrism.¹⁵

Especially relevant here is the axiom of St. Augustine: "what the whole Church holds, and has not been instituted by Councils, but has always been retained, is most rightly handed down as delivered by Apostolic authority." Now, from history it is proved that the anointing of chrism has always been employed in the Church, both Latin and Greek: which same thing cannot be said concerning that first imposition of hands. It is confirmed from the Roman Catechism, from the decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, and finally from the Encyclical Letter of Benedict XIV Ex quo primum, given to the Archbishops

and Bishops of the Greek rite, in the year 1750, where mention is made only of the anointing of chrism carried out by the hand of the Bishop, as of the total or adequate matter. From all these things Sylvius concludes that this must be held as of faith.¹

1495. Hence it is inferred: 1. It is not necessary, for the value of the Sacrament, that those to be confirmed be present at the beginning of the rite, when the first and general imposition of hands is made; nor at the end, while the Bishop gives the final blessing: because these are mere ceremonies.

2. It is necessary for the value of the Sacrament that the anointing be made immediately by the hand of the minister, not through the mediation of an instrument, for example a brush; because then the imposition of the hand would be lacking, which is not necessary in Extreme Unction. Likewise, it is essential that the one to be confirmed be anointed on the forehead, for showing that he is not ashamed of Christ, and indeed in the form of a cross, that the form be verified: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, etc."²

3. By precept, the anointing ought to be done with the right thumb of the Bishop, as the PONTIFICAL prescribes. Yet the anointing would be valid if it were done with another finger, and even if it were a finger of the left hand, because it would truly be done by the imposition of the Bishop's hand. But the Bishop would sin who would do this without necessity; because he would depart from the practice of the universal Church; although it does not appear that the inversion of the said ceremony reaches grave fault.

4. With respect to the quantity of chrism, that is required and suffices which is enough for anointing the forehead in the form of a cross; whence the Bishop should take care lest chrism fail on the thumb.³

1496. Consequently to those things which we have said concerning the matter, these things must be held concerning the form:

I. The form of the Sacrament of Confirmation consists in these words, which accompany the anointing, namely: 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. This is established from the Roman Catechism,⁴ where it is said that "this is the true and absolute form of this Sacrament," and it is added that "the authority of the Catholic Church does not allow anything to be doubted concerning this matter." Eugene IV hands down the same form in the decree to the Armenians.⁵

"In this form, as St. Thomas teaches, all things which are contained in this Sacrament are adequately explained, namely the SIGN of the army of Christ, when the confirmed are enrolled by those words, I sign thee with the sign of the cross; the EFFECT of the Sacrament, that is, strengthening grace, by those words, I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation; and the CAUSE OF GRACE, namely the Most Holy Trinity, by those words, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."⁶

II. To the ESSENCE pertain: the words sign and confirm; the expression of the Trinity, which is invoked earlier by the Greeks; the word thee; likewise sign of the cross, chrism of salvation.

The change would be ACCIDENTAL if one said I strengthen for I confirm, or of sanctification for of salvation.

The form of the Greeks is: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit: in which, according to the character of that language, behold or is given to thee is understood. This form is indeed valid, as Urban VIII declared.⁷

1497. I. The ORDINARY minister of Confirmation is the Bishop alone. It is of faith, against Photius, the modern Greeks, etc., as is established from Trent, sess. 7, can. 3, on Confirmation: "If anyone shall say that the ordinary minister of holy Confirmation is not the Bishop alone, but any simple priest whatsoever: let him be anathema." Yet:

II. A simple priest can be the EXTRAORDINARY minister of Confirmation from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff. This is established from the Decree to the Armenians, where Eugene IV thus says: "Yet it is read that sometimes, by dispensation of the Apostolic See, from a reasonable and very urgent cause, a simple priest, with chrism made by a Bishop, has administered this Sacrament of Confirmation." It is also established from the practice and authority of several Pontiffs, especially Benedict XIV, who by the Bull Eo quamvis tempore granted that missionary priests give Confirmation to the Copts in a case of necessity.⁸ Moreover, presbyters of the Greek Church, from custom, anoint children with sacred chrism immediately after Baptism has been conferred, which is not reprobated by the Supreme Pontiffs. Whence it must be said that priests through Ordination receive this power incompletely and inchoatively, and that it is made complete and perfected through delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, whether express, as is required among Latins, or tacit, as is conceded from prudence among the Greeks.⁹

We have said from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff; for neither for the liceity nor for the value of the Sacrament does the delegation of the Bishop alone suffice; as Benedict XIV proves,¹⁰ who affirms that a concession of this kind is an act of that supreme power which Christ the Lord committed to His Vicar on earth.

1498. It is asked: What sin does a Bishop commit by not confirming his own, or by confirming strangers?

Resp. 1. He sins gravely by omitting, for a long space of time, for example for eight or ten years, the Confirmation of his own. The reason is that he deprives of an enormous fruit those whose good, from office, he ought to consult. Hence, unless he is excused by moral impossibility, he is held, and indeed at his own expense, to go around his diocese, at least the principal places, for conferring Confirmation. Yet since this Sacrament is not absolutely necessary, as will be said below (n. 1501), he does not seem held to confer it on those affected by plague, nor on every dying person asking for it. For grave inconvenience excuses him, as also does common practice.¹¹

Resp. 2. A Bishop confirming in a diocese not his own, whether strangers or his own subjects, without the consent of the diocesan Bishop, sins gravely and incurs suspension from Pontificals by the law itself, from Trent, sess. 6, cap. 5, de Ref. (cf. n. 1368). But if he confirms strangers in his own diocese, this is per se illicit; but, from common usage, the consent of their Bishop is presumed.¹²

1499. I. VALIDLY confirmed are all and only those baptized who have not yet been confirmed. This is established both from what was said concerning the nature of the Sacrament and from the use and tradition of the Church (cf. nn. 1432 and 1433).

Hence you will infer: 1. The dying are to be confirmed, that in the resurrection they may appear perfect, and may be able to fight bravely with the devil, especially concerning faith, if perhaps they have need.¹³

2. The perpetually insane are validly and licitly confirmed; for although they never seem about to fight spiritually, nevertheless this happens per accidens. For the rest, it can happen that they enjoy at least some lucid interval, in which so great a help will profit them unto salvation.¹⁴

3. Infants not yet having attained the use of reason are validly confirmed; because bodily age does not prejudice the soul, and therefore just as an old man can obtain spiritual birth through Baptism, so a child or infant can obtain perfect spiritual age through Confirmation. Thus St. Thomas.¹⁵

Whether infants not yet having attained the use of reason are licitly confirmed, YOU WILL ASK? Resp. Regularly this is illicit, as Benedict XIV declared.¹⁶ For the contrary usage has prevailed in the Roman Church, both on account of reverence for the Sacrament, and to avoid the danger of repetition, and finally so that those receiving may understand that through Baptism they had indeed been accepted into the Christian army, but through Confirmation they had been strengthened for battle, and instructed by grace for bearing contests. "Wherefore, if the twelfth year does not seem to be awaited, at least until the seventh it is especially fitting to defer this Sacrament."¹⁷ We have said regularly; because they are licitly confirmed before the use of reason if just causes accede, for example danger of death, long absence of the Bishop, legitimate custom, etc.

4. One doubting whether he has been confirmed can be confirmed under condition: but a greater doubt is required than for Baptism; and he who is probably confirmed is not held to this, even if he is to be ordained.¹⁸

1500. II. That an adult LICITLY receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, besides the conditions to be placed for validity, there is required in him: 1. The state of grace, because Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living. Hence the Roman Pontifical: "Adults ought first to confess sins and afterwards be confirmed, or at least concerning mortal sins, if they have fallen into them, let them be contrite." To the unworthy, character is indeed conferred, but not grace.¹⁹ 2. Knowledge of the rudiments of faith, especially those which are of the necessity of means, and which look to receiving the Sacrament. 3. From law it seems also to be required that both the one confirming and the one to be confirmed be fasting; but authors say this is of counsel, or if it is a precept, that it does not oblige under grave obligation, or that it has not been received, or that it has now ceased by contrary custom.²⁰

1501. It is asked: Whether there is an OBLIGATION of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Resp. The Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary by necessity of means unto salvation. All confess this, and the reason is that through Baptism alone the grace of sanctification and eternal life can be had. But it is, without doubt, necessary by necessity of precept whenever, from omission of it, either contempt of the Sacrament would be had, or grave scandal would arise, or danger of the soul losing faith or charity would certainly be imminent, for example in places in which persecutions against Catholics break out. Thus commonly.

But the question is whether there is an obligation PER SE of receiving this Sacrament? Some indeed deny with St. Thomas²¹ that any precept exists concerning this matter, whether natural or positive, at least under grave obligation. But others more truly affirm with St. Antoninus and St. Bonaventure; and they say that there is a grave obligation, from divine precept, of receiving this Sacrament, at least during the course of life and when opportunity is given. The reason is that, by the very fact that Christ the Lord instituted it as a peculiar remedy for beating back the attacks of enemies, chiefly against faith, He assuredly annexed to it such sacramental grace as is of the greatest help and utility to all. But voluntarily to deprive oneself of so great a good is gravely repugnant to charity and to care for salvation; therefore he manifestly sins against charity toward himself who, detained by no impediment, neglects to be confirmed.²²

But indeed, this grave obligation is principally proved from the declaration of BENEDICT XIV in the Bull Etsi pastoralia, on the rites and dogmas of the Greeks. For he speaks thus (§ 3, n. 4): "They who have not been confirmed are to be admonished by the Ordinaries of places that they are held by guilt of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it." The ROMAN RITUAL agrees, in whose newest Appendix these things are read: "Although this Sacrament is not of the necessity of means unto salvation, nevertheless, without guilt of grave sin, it cannot be spurned and neglected, when a suitable occasion of receiving it is present."²³ Whence, the denying opinion does not seem to remain probable.²⁴

1502. Some ceremonies of Confirmation precede, others accompany, others follow the conferral of this Sacrament. Since they are prescribed in the Pontifical, it must be said that they, in general, oblige under grave obligation, so that it would certainly be mortal to omit them all.²⁵ Thus commonly.

We shall treat specifically: 1. of the sponsor; 2. of the other ceremonies.

1503. I. A SPONSOR is required, and indeed under grave obligation, as is commonly taught. "He who receives this Sacrament," says St. Thomas,¹ "is held by another, as if to be instructed by another in spiritual combat." Yet if a sponsor could not be had, it would be licit to confer Confirmation without one.²

1504. II. That someone VALIDLY be sponsor, it is necessary: 1. that he be in possession of reason, although still before puberty. 2. That he be designated by the one himself to be confirmed, or, if this one is a child, by the parents, or at least by the Bishop. 3. That he physically touch the one to be confirmed; whether the latter, according to the rubric of the Pontifical, places his foot upon the right foot of his sponsor; or the former, according to approved custom, puts his right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed (S. Rit. C., September 20, 1749, in Laurin.).³ 4. That he himself be confirmed; for in the Roman Pontifical it is had: "No one who has not been confirmed can be a sponsor in Confirmation." This is understood not only concerning a grave prohibition, as is certain among all, but more probably also concerning nullity of the act. And this, at least for practice, is safe from the declaration of the S. C. C., which in Lycien., June 13, 1654, decreed: "One not confirmed does not contract spiritual relationship."⁴

"But, because it can happen that in places of the Missions no one is present who had previously been confirmed, it is permitted, in this case, that some be confirmed without a sponsor, who afterwards will be able to be sponsors of the others." Instruction of the S. C. PROP. FIDE, May 4, 1774.

1505. III. That someone LICITLY be sponsor, there is moreover required: 1. that there be only one man, or one woman, from canon law; 2. one diverse from the sponsor of Baptism, unless there is a just cause to the contrary; 3. of the same sex as the one himself to be confirmed, and not less than fourteen years old, from the cited Instruction of the S. C. PROP. FID., May 4, 1774; 4. that he not be a Religious or a Nun, unless the person to be confirmed is likewise a regular, from canon law; 5. nor the father or mother, husband or wife of the one to be confirmed, from the Roman Pontifical; 6. not excommunicated, interdicted, contaminated by graver crimes, or ignorant of the rudiments of faith, from the same Pontifical.⁵

1506. Note. 1. Formerly in the Diocese of Fiesole the usage had prevailed that one sponsor for all males, and one sponsa for all females, be deputed by the pastor or by the Bishop. Since from this it had happened that the spiritual sons for the most part did not know the sponsors, nor the sponsors the spiritual sons, the following doubt was proposed: Whether and how the usage of the Diocese of Fiesole is to be approved in the case? And the S. C. CONC., July 12, 1823, responded:⁶ "It is not to be approved, but to be tolerated in a case of necessity to be judged by the Bishop, according to the form of the Roman Pontifical." But this form is: "Let no one present except one or two, not more, unless necessity advises otherwise, at the judgment of the Bishop." If the Bishop wishes to perform not only the office of minister, but also of sponsor, let him perform the office of sponsor through a proxy (S. Rit. C., June 14, 1873, in Policastren.).⁷

2. Concerning SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP, which is contracted in this Sacrament, the Tridentine Synod established these things:⁸ "Let that relationship also, which is contracted from Confirmation, not go beyond the one confirming and the confirmed, and his father and mother, and the one holding him, all impediments of this spiritual relationship among other persons having been altogether taken away." This decree of the Council indeed has place in those who are bound to observe the Tridentine statutes. But the rest should conform themselves, in this part, to the discipline in force in their own regions. Thus the Instruction of the S. C. PROP. FID., May 4, 1774 (cf. n. 2021).

1507. Let the following things be noted: 1. The Sacrament of Confirmation can be conferred less solemnly, on any day, hour, and place, from a just cause, at the judgment of the Bishop. But to minister this Sacrament without cause outside a church or chapel cannot be excused from venial sin.⁹

2. "The Bishop ought to be vested with amice over rochet, or over surplice if he is a Religious, and with stole, cope of white color, miter, and staff." And, according to the truer opinion, "it is mortal to omit all the aforesaid instruments, since they pertain to reverence for the Sacrament; otherwise, if only one is omitted, because this does not seem to be grave matter."¹⁰ Yet the use of Pontificals is prohibited to a simple priest administering this Sacrament from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff, unless he has a special privilege.¹¹

3. To omit the candle and the slap does not exceed venial sin.

4. It is licit to change the name in Confirmation.¹² Indeed, "if someone has a shameful name, or one not fitting for a Christian man, let him assume another in Confirmation." From the Instruction of the S. C. PROP. FID., May 4, 1774.

5. After the anointing, the forehead ought to be bound with a linen band, from the Pontifical; but now wiping of the forehead has prevailed in its place.

6. The blessing is given by the Bishop to all at the end: yet this ceremony is customarily omitted, as also the admonition that they not depart beforehand, when there is a great concourse of those to be confirmed.¹³

7. Let the pastor note in the Book the names of those confirmed and of the sponsors: both for detecting spiritual relationships and on account of the reception of sacred Orders.¹⁴

Confirmation is defined: a Sacrament of the new law, by which, through an anointing of Chrism, under a certain form of words, there is given to the baptized the fullness of the Holy Spirit for believing firmly, and for confessing the Faith intrepidly.

We must treat: 1° of the matter and form of Confirmation; 2° of its Minister; 3° of its subject.

1270. - I. The remote matter of Confirmation is Chrism compounded from olive oil and balsam, and blessed by a Bishop. - Thus commonly, and it is established from the Council of Florence in the Decree concerning the Sacraments. It can also be said that the partial remote matter is the hand of the Bishop as formally such, namely insofar as the imposition of the hand is the partial proximate matter, as will be said presently.

II. The proximate matter is the anointing of Chrism applied to those to be confirmed by the Minister of this Sacrament through the imposition of the hand. It is established from the declaration of Benedict XIV, encyclical letter Ex quo primum, 1 Mar. 1756, § 52, where he has this: "Therefore let that be said which is beyond controversy: namely, that in the Latin Church the Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred by employing Sacred Chrism, or olive oil mixed with balsam and blessed by a Bishop, and by the Sign of the Cross being drawn by the Minister of the Sacrament on the forehead of the one receiving it, while the same Minister pronounces the words of the form."

Therefore the proximate matter of Confirmation does not consist partially, as several formerly wished, in the general imposition of the hand made by the Bishop upon all those to be confirmed.¹

1271. Questions. - Query 1° Is balsam required by necessity of the Sacrament?

Resp. More probably affirmatively, as it seems, from the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, where he says that the matter of Confirmation is Chrism made from oil and balsam. But balsam of any region whatever suffices, and in that quantity alone which is enough that it can give its odor; nor is it necessary that it be mixed with all parts of the oil.²

Query 2° Must Chrism necessarily be blessed?

Resp. 1° It must be answered absolutely in the affirmative, if the question is of necessity of precept. - Thus all with St. Alphonsus.³

Resp. 2° It seems it must be answered in the affirmative also if the question is of necessity of the Sacrament. For the constant practice of the Church, and the Decree of Eugene IV, in which it is read that the matter of Confirmation is blessed Chrism, persuades this. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.⁴ - But whether Chrism must necessarily be blessed by a Bishop will be said below, where we treat of the Minister.

Query 3° Must Chrism necessarily be of that year?

Resp. This is not required by necessity of the Sacrament, because whether it is old or new, the matter is not changed; but it is required from the precept of the Church. Hence the Bishop who confirmed with old Chrism would sin gravely. For to this end new Chrism is consecrated on the Supper of the Lord, the old having been burned.¹

Query 4° For the value of the Sacrament, must the oil necessarily be olive oil?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that this is properly called oil. Hence oil made from another matter, for example from nuts, is not valid matter, because it does not come simply under the name of oil. - Thus commonly with St. Thomas² and St. Alphonsus.³

Query 5° How must the anointing be made?

Resp. It must be made with the right thumb of the Bishop, in the manner of a cross, on the forehead of the one to be confirmed. Nevertheless the anointing would be valid if it were done with another finger of the Bishop, and even if it were a finger of the left hand, because it would truly be done through the imposition of an Episcopal hand. Nevertheless the Bishop who did this without necessity would sin, because he would depart from the practice of the universal Church; although it does not appear that the inversion of the aforesaid ceremony reaches to grave fault.⁴

Query 6° Can the anointing validly be made by means of an instrument?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because there would be lacking the immediate imposition of the hand of the Minister, which from what has been said is altogether required. Nor should you say that Extreme Unction is validly ministered by means of an instrument; for in that Sacrament the imposition of the hand is not required for validity, as in Confirmation.⁵

1272. - The form of the Sacrament of Confirmation consists in these words: 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. - Thus Eugene IV defined in the cited Decree. - It is also established from the constant practice of the Church.

1273. - Query. Which words of this form are essential?

Resp. For validity the following are altogether essential: 1° the word I confirm, unless it is supplied by another synonymous word; 2° the expression of the Most Holy Trinity, as in Baptism; 3° the word thee, by which the subject of the Sacrament is designated; 4° the words I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and also the words with the Chrism of salvation. But to say I strengthen for I confirm, or of sanctification for of salvation, would be only an accidental change.¹

1274. - I. The Bishop alone is the ordinary Minister of this Sacrament. Thus Innocent III and the Council of Trent declared.²

II. A simple priest can confirm as extraordinary Minister by special delegation of the Supreme Pontiff. It is established from the practice of the Church, and from the Bull of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis tempore. - See St. Alphonsus.³ - But the priest must use Chrism blessed by a Bishop. It is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, where the matter of Confirmation is said to be Chrism blessed by a Bishop.

1275. Questions. - Query 1° Can the Pope delegate even to a simple priest the power of making Chrism?

Resp. It is controverted. St. Alphonsus affirms.⁴

Query 2° Can a Bishop confirm faithful persons not subject to him?

Resp. 1° As regards validity, he can confirm all, as follows from the power of Orders.

Resp. 2° As regards lawfulness, he cannot confirm except those who are found in his diocese; and he would sin gravely by confirming even his own subjects in another diocese, because Confirmation is an exercise of jurisdiction of the external forum, which cannot be performed without the license of the Ordinary of the place.

But he can confirm outsiders in his own diocese, because, unless the contrary is established, the tacit consent of other Bishops is always presumed. - Thus more probably and more commonly.⁵

Query 3° When is a Bishop held to confirm?

Resp. 1° He is held to confirm those asking, as often as he conveniently can, if he cannot defer to another proximate time.

Resp. 2° He is also held sometimes to offer his subjects an opportunity of receiving this Sacrament. Hence he would sin gravely if for a long time he abstained from conferring Confirmation, for example for eight or ten years, and did not go around the diocese, at least through the principal places, unless he were excused by moral impossibility.¹

Query 4° Does a Bishop sin gravely by omitting to confirm a dying person asking for the Sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, at least probably. The reason is because, since this Sacrament is not necessary for salvation, the inconvenience of going to the sick lying in their own homes excuses. This is also confirmed by common practice.²

1276. - The subject of the Sacrament of Confirmation is every and only baptized man not yet confirmed, although lacking the use of reason. For Confirmation perfects the spiritual life which is received in Baptism, and it was instituted for all, as was Baptism.

Nevertheless, from the practice generally prevailing in the Church, children who have not yet obtained the use of reason are not to be confirmed, except for peculiar reasons, for example in danger of death.³

1277. Questions. - Query 1° Whether, or of what kind, is the obligation of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Resp. 1° There is no obligation by necessity of means. For even through Baptism alone remission of sins and eternal life can be had.

Resp. 2° According to St. Alphonsus⁴ there is an obligation binding under grave sin from divine precept, at least in the course of life, and when a suitable occasion is given; and he proves this from the Declaration of Benedict XIV in the Bull Etsi pastoralis concerning the rites and dogmas of the Greeks, where⁵ he says: "They are to be warned" (those who are not confirmed) "by the Ordinaries of places, that they are held guilty of grave sin if, when they can approach Confirmation, they refuse and neglect it."

Query 2° What must be done in doubt whether someone has been confirmed?

Resp. He can be confirmed again under condition, as is clear from what has been said in n. 1213. But one is not held to this, if he truly probably believes that he has received this Sacrament.¹

Query 3° What dispositions are required in those to be confirmed?

Resp. There is required: 1° the baptismal character for the validity of the Sacrament, and moreover in an adult the intention of receiving the Sacrament, as is established from what has been said in n. 1238. III. 1240. R. 2°.

2° The state of grace, because Confirmation is a Sacrament of the living. Wherefore he who is conscious of mortal sin must have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, unless he is perfectly contrite.

3° That the one to be confirmed be imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, especially those which are of necessity of means, and which regard the Sacraments of Penance and Confirmation.

4° That he have a Patron. Concerning this note these hortatory words of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:² "The Bishops will move every stone, so that discipline of this kind" (namely of employing Patrons in Confirmation), "already introduced in some dioceses of these Provinces, be introduced everywhere. But those confirmed shall each have individual Patrons, nor, however, shall males perform the office of Patron for females, nor females for males. But if this altogether cannot be done, at least two Patrons are to be employed for boys, and two Matrons for girls." The journal Pastoral-Blatt fuer Nordamerika³ thinks that one male or one female can be employed for both sexes, where two cannot be found. Besides, Patrons for Confirmation must have the same qualities as Patrons for Baptism.⁴

But "the Patron places the right hand upon the right shoulder of the one to be confirmed, which custom is different from that which is prescribed in the Pontifical, but has been approved by the S. C. R. on 20 Sept. 1749." Cf. L. VI. 187, § fin.¹

5° "Whenever Confirmation is administered to many, we establish," say the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,³ "that slips, on which the names of those who are to be confirmed are inscribed, are to be given by the pastor to each one, which they are to exhibit to the Bishop about to administer the Sacrament."

Query 4° Must the one to be confirmed be fasting?

Resp. Negatively, considering the custom of today, and the same holds concerning the one confirming. For the canonical laws which prescribed fasting for receiving Confirmation have gone into desuetude. Therefore also the practice of conferring this Sacrament in the evening time has prevailed; but it can be conferred on any day.¹

173. The second sacrament is Confirmation. - "In the spiritual life," says St. Thomas, C.G. IV, 60, "the first thing is spiritual generation through Baptism; the second is spiritual increase leading to perfect strength through the sacrament of Confirmation." The name is taken from the effect: for confirmation (vormsel, formerly vroomsel) is said from the verb to confirm (i.e. to strengthen, to render firm; vromen); but this sacrament in the spiritual life strengthens, fortifies, and leads, as it were, to a certain adult age.

The denomination has a foundation in the Scriptures, II Cor. I, 21; but it first seems to have been used in the fourth century by St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries, VII, 42, and most certainly by the First Council of Orange (a. 441), can. 2.

It was also called by other names:

a) from the remote matter it is called chrism of salvation, sacrament of chrism, mystery of the ointment; in Greek: χρίσμα, or τὸ μύρον, i.e. ointment, which is the name customarily used by the more recent Greeks;

b) from the proximate matter: seal or σφραγίς, consignation, anointing, imposition of the hand or χειροθεσία;

c) from the effect: gift of the Holy Spirit; sacrament of fullness; perfection and consummation, or τελείωσις and βεβαίωσις.

174. Confirmation is defined: A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ the Lord, in which, by imposition of the hand and anointing of chrism under the prescribed form of words, the Holy Spirit is conferred upon the baptized for professing the faith strenuously.

In this definition there is indicated:

1. The genus to which Confirmation pertains: a sacrament of the New Law.

2. The author of Confirmation: instituted by Christ the Lord.

3. The matter: in which by imposition of the hand and anointing of chrism.

4. The form: under the prescribed form of words.

5. The subject: upon the baptized.

6. The effect: the Holy Spirit is conferred for professing the faith strenuously.

175. Division of the treatise. - The treatise is divided into four questions:

1. On the sacrament of Confirmation itself: a) on its institution; b) on its constitutive parts or matter and form.

2. On the effects of Confirmation.

3. On the minister of Confirmation.

4. On the subject of Confirmation.¹

¹ Concerning Confirmation there can be consulted St. Thomas III, q. 72, with the commentaries of Cajetan and Billuart; St. Bellarmine, Controv., on Confirmation; Witasse, Treatise on Confirmation; Van Noort, Tanquerey, De Smet, Hugon in their works on the Sacraments; Chardon, History of the Sacraments; Nepefny, Die Firmung; Heimbucher, Die H. Firmung; L. Janssens, La Confirmation; Bickell, Die Firmung bei den Nestorianern; Dölger, Das Sakrament der Firmung historisch-dogmatisch dargestellt; Dict. de Théol., art. Chrême and Confirmation; Coppens, L'Imposition des mains et les rites connexes; d'Alès, De Baptismo et Confirmatione.

There is added an appendix on the ceremonies of Confirmation.

S. Th. III, q. 72, a. 5 and 7.

184. The effect of the sacrament of Confirmation, even in infants, is strengthening in the spiritual life, or fortification and increase of supernatural life, so that man is brought in it, as it were, to perfect age. This is explicitly taught by the Council of Florence, and otherwise is clear from the manner of speaking used by the Scriptures and the Fathers, according to which in Confirmation the Holy Spirit Himself is infused and conferred simply,¹ i.e. fully with all gifts, unto the strength and firmness of justice, and unto their full outpouring and abundance, whereas in Baptism He already conferred rebirth and the remission of sins.² And indeed:

¹ Acts VIII, 15-16; XIX, 5-6.

² Acts II, 38; XXII, 16; Heb. X, 22; John III, 5; Eph. V, 26.

A. On those who do not place an obstacle it confers grace, which is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 1: per se, second grace, because fortification and increase in the spiritual life of itself supposes this; per accidens, probably first grace, if someone in good faith approaches in sin, being attrite concerning it (a. 7, ad 2).

Hence a) per accidens it remits mortal sin; b) it also remits venial sins, by means of fervor or the exercise of charity, according as and insofar as this contains at least implicitly their retractation; c) but if someone places an obstacle, once the obstacle has been removed by penance, he will obtain the grace of the sacrament.

Moreover, the sacrament confers:

1. habitual grace making one pleasing, which it increases, as we have said: for the Holy Spirit is not given except with grace making one pleasing (a. 7);

2. all the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are infused together with grace and are proportionately increased with it;

3. special sacramental grace strengthening (ad 3), namely, for confessing the faith publicly before men strenuously and boldly, and for defending it and fighting for it; as is clear from the effect produced in the apostles;

4. the right to actual graces, necessary for this end, to be obtained throughout the whole of life at the opportune time.

B. All who validly receive it, it consecrates and signs with an indelible character, as is of faith from Trent, sess. 7, can. 9, by which the baptized man is made a soldier of Christ, receiving the power, from office, of professing the faith publicly and fighting, and of receiving sacred things more fittingly. St. Thomas shows this thus, a. 5:

"Character is a certain spiritual power ordered to certain sacred actions... But it has been said above that, just as Baptism is a certain spiritual regeneration into Christian life, so also Confirmation is a certain spiritual increase advancing man into perfect spiritual age. But from the likeness of bodily life it is manifest that one action belongs to a man immediately after birth, and another belongs to him when he has arrived at perfect age. And therefore through the sacrament of Confirmation there is given to man spiritual power for certain other sacred actions, besides those for which power is given to him in Baptism. For in Baptism man receives power for doing those things which pertain to his own salvation, insofar, namely, as he lives according to himself; but in Confirmation man receives power for doing those things which pertain to spiritual combat against the enemies of the faith, as is clear in the example of the apostles, who, before they received the fullness of the Holy Spirit, were persevering in prayer in the upper room; but afterward, having gone out, they did not fear publicly to confess the Christian faith even before enemies. And therefore it is manifest that in the sacrament of Confirmation a character is imprinted."

"And therefore the character of Confirmation is a distinctive sign, not of unbelievers from believers, but of those spiritually advanced from those to whom it is said, I Pet. II, 2: As newborn infants..." (ad 1).

This effect is also produced in those who place an obstacle to grace; and it is a permanent title on account of which, once the obstacle has been removed, the grace of the sacrament is conferred and the sacrament always revives.

185. Corollaries. - 1. The character of Confirmation of necessity supposes the baptismal character, because no one can be advanced into perfect age unless first he has been born; whence if someone not baptized were confirmed, he would receive nothing (a. 6).

2. The sacrament of Confirmation is unrepeatable, because it imprints an indelible character; nor was that which was thought to have been validly administered ever repeated in the Church. But if it is sometimes read that hands were imposed on those confirmed in heresy with invocation of the Holy Spirit or for receiving the Holy Spirit, this must be understood either of a penitential rite; or of the grace of Confirmation which, on account of the removal of the obstacle by penance, is granted at that moment; or even, in certain Churches, of the repetition of Confirmation, because they held it invalid when administered by heretics, while they thought that the condition of validity posited by the Church was the true faith of the minister concerning the Most Holy Trinity.

Confirmation is a sacrament of the new law, by which through the anointing of chrism, under a certain form of words, there is given to the baptized the fullness of the Holy Spirit for firmly believing and for intrepidly confessing the faith.

It is indeed clear that Confirmation is truly and properly so called a sacrament and distinct from Baptism; but it is not clear concerning the time in which it was instituted. The more probable opinion is that it was instituted after the resurrection. According to others, Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation at the Last Supper after the institution itself of the Eucharist. - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 1, p. 410.

I. QUESTION I. Is Confirmation a sacrament of the new law? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and that by the clearest testimonies of the Scriptures and by the perennial tradition of the Fathers: which truth against the Protestants Trent defined, session 7, On Confirmation, canon 1.

II. QUESTION II. What is the matter of this sacrament? ANSWER. All Catholics against Luther, Calvin, Dallaeus, and the other innovators teach that it is either the chrism, or the imposition of hands, or both together. To me the more probable opinion is that which lays down that the adequate matter of this sacrament is the imposition of hands and the chrism, which is confected of oil and balsam. Theologians dispute whether balsam be necessary in the confection of the chrism, with the necessity of the sacrament or of precept. Some affirm, others deny. Each opinion can be defended without loss of faith. To me the more probable opinion is that which defends that oil mixed with balsam is necessary with the necessity of the sacrament. That that chrism be consecrated is necessary with the necessity of the sacrament, as the more probable opinion defends. The minister of the consecration is the bishop. Theologians dispute whether the faculty of blessing chrism can be committed by the Apostolic See to a simple priest. Suárez, Salmerón, Toletus, Sylvius, Gonet, and many others deny it. Sirmond, Cajetan, Soto, Vitasse, and many others affirm it. This second opinion is to me the more probable.

III. QUESTION III. What is the form of the sacrament of Confirmation? ANSWER. The form which the Latin Church uses is this: 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 Ghost. The form which the Greek Church uses is this: The seal of the Holy Ghost. The Latin Church holds this form as ratified. Many things theologians dispute concerning each form; but they are not of such moment as to be discussed.

IV. QUESTION IV. Who is the author of this sacrament? ANSWER. Various disputations being dismissed, with the common opinion of Catholics I say that Christ the Lord is the immediate or proximate institutor of that sacrament. And this has been shown above. Concerning the time at which he instituted it — whether before his death, or after the resurrection, or on the day of Pentecost — nothing certain can be laid down.

V. QUESTION V. Is the bishop alone the ordinary minister of this sacrament? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and this was defined both in the Council of Florence in the Instruction for the Armenians and in Trent, session 7, canon 3. The faculty of confirming can nevertheless be granted by the Supreme Pontiff to a simple priest, as several examples prove. This faculty cannot be granted by bishops, as the more probable opinion defends. A bishop sins mortally who omits the administration of this sacrament, because a shepherd is bound to feed his own flock.

VI. QUESTION VI. Who are capable of receiving this sacrament? ANSWER. All the baptized, whether men or women, or infants, are by right capable of that sacrament, as the custom both of the Latin and of the Greek Church proves: for formerly for many centuries chrism was conferred upon infants after baptism. Since nevertheless that sacrament is not necessary with the necessity of means, it was fittingly laid down in several councils that it be administered to the baptized after the use of reason has been attained. Whether the demented are to be confirmed is remitted to the prudence of the bishops. To the sick and to the possessed this sacrament ought to be administered, that they may become stronger in their struggles.

VII. QUESTION VII. What dispositions are required in adults to be confirmed? ANSWER. First, they ought to be in grace. Second, if they are conscious to themselves of mortal sin, they ought to send sacramental confession before. Third, they ought to be versed in the apostolic symbol. Fourth, it is very fitting that they be fasting. It is the part of parish priests to instruct them and to teach them the dignity of so great a sacrament. Let them above all imbue them with this: that they are sealed on the forehead with the sign of the cross, that, fortified with this sacred token, they may dare openly and in the sight of the whole world, human respects and petty reasonings being trodden underfoot, to confess the faith of Christ and the sanctity of his evangelical morality against all corruptions. These things are to be fixed more deeply in their minds by the parish priest.

VIII. QUESTION VIII. What are the effects of Confirmation? ANSWER. Two: grace and a character, as is plain from divine Scripture. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost: Acts 8. The communication of the Holy Ghost is not made without the infusion of grace. There is added that all the sacraments of the new law confer sanctifying grace. Confirmation confers the second, not the first grace, since it is a sacrament of the living, not of the dead. This grace renders the baptized man intrepid, strong, and robust. In the first centuries of the Church, while the most monstrous persecutors raged against the Church of God, confirmed Christians feared not the rack, not the burning furnaces, not the raging beasts to whose jaws they were delivered; but with incredible fortitude they suffered the harsher torments and the most monstrous butchery of their own bodies, that they might maintain the faith of Christ. What now is the struggle, who the enemies to be overcome? Human respects, political reasonings, love of the age, pomps, luxury, the enticements of a raving world. All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. There are therefore in every age persecutors, and indeed within, not to say outside, the Church, as all the Fathers testify. The dogmas of faith are liable to no persecution within the Church. Therefore the precepts, and indeed chiefly those of charity, suffer persecution — not open, but crafty and enticing. Put on therefore fortitude, O Christian, unfold the sign of the Cross impressed upon thy forehead. Openly confess evangelical morality, not in word only but in morals. Thou bearest a character impressed upon thy soul from this sacrament, as St. Paul testifies, 2 Corinthians 1: God … hath anointed us, and hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts. See more in Vol. VIII, Book 2, dissertation 1, chapter 3.

IX. QUESTION IX. Is there given a precept of receiving this sacrament? ANSWER. Many kindly probabilists deny any precept whatsoever, whether divine or ecclesiastical, of receiving this sacrament. Fr. Leander, tract 3, disputation 1, question 5, answers more probably that no such divine precept is given; and at question 6 he similarly answers more probably that no ecclesiastical precept is given. At last at question 7 he determines it more probable that he sins venially who through negligence should omit this sacrament.

X. Fr. Viva goes further in his Course of Theology, tract 5, question 3, article 1, no. 6, where he lays down that, scandal and contempt being cut off, he does not sin even venially who omits this sacrament, because, he says from Trullench, nowhere is there a precept concerning receiving it.

XI. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, doubt 3, no. 395, question 72, asserts from Dicastillo that there was formerly an ecclesiastical precept, but that through desuetude that precept has now ceased. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 3, chapter 3, § 4, keenly inveighs against Leander for having taught that he sins venially who omits this sacrament through negligence: because concerning this no precept appears: which is the opinion of Suárez against Cajetan.

XII. Here the opinion of the casuists is false. I have transcribed in Vol. VIII, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 6, the testimonies of the Fathers, the decrees of councils, and especially the testimony of the Tridentine Catechism, which in part 2, On Confirmation, §§ 16 and 17, inculcates with a vehement exhortation the reception of that sacrament.

XIII. It is agreed among all that this sacrament is not necessary with the necessity of means. But a precept, both divine and ecclesiastical, although it has not been brought in express words, is nevertheless gathered from the common tradition and consent of the Church. It is permitted to add the words of Benedict XIV, happily reigning, who in his Constitution On the Rites of the Greeks, § 5, says that it is to be admonished by the bishops that they are held guilty of grave sin, if, when they can approach to confirmation, they refuse and neglect it. Let all the synods and catechisms be turned over — those of the latest age, not to say the ancient ones — and it will be plain to everyone with what zeal and study the Fathers and bishops and the more celebrated theologians inculcate the reception and administration of that sacrament. Wherefore all the councils nearer to us, especially that of Worms, and the Fourth of Milan, of Bordeaux, and of Aix, and the Tridentine Catechism, prove that the doctrine of those who excuse from venial fault the faithful who neglect the reception of that sacrament is a figment injurious to the councils themselves. Wherefore by right the University of Paris in the year 1625 proscribed this opinion: All theologians say that confirmation is not commanded, except when it can be conveniently had, or, as others say, most conveniently, when without any, or with the very least, inconvenience. Upon which opinion the Sorbonne passed this censure: That proposition is scandalous, and put forth with a malign mind, to the greatest contempt of the sacrament of Confirmation.

XIV. QUESTION X. What are the rites of receiving that sacrament? ANSWER. First, a godparent is to be chosen, who may present the neophyte to be confirmed. Second, those are not to be chosen as godparents who are not themselves confirmed, because they are not perfect members of Christ. Third, parents ought not to stand as godparents, on account of the spiritual kinship which they would contract; nor those who have not attained the fourteenth year; nor women for males, nor males for females; nor ought young men to present the old in the receiving of the sacrament of Confirmation, or act as co-sponsors, unless necessity compel otherwise. Fourth, the time of Confirmation was formerly Pentecost. This discipline is subject to change. Most excellently nevertheless will bishops act if at this time, when opportunity is at hand, they administer that sacrament. In any church whatsoever the bishop can administer this sacrament. These things being disposed, the bishop approaches to sign the neophytes, kneeling and holding their hands before the breast. He pronounces the form: I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and so forth, anointing them with chrism. He strikes the confirmed lightly with a blow on the cheek, that he may hence gather that he ought to be prepared for injuries, contumelies, and persecutions to be sustained for the name of Christ. Afterwards the forehead of the confirmed is bound about with a fillet, or a little band of white linen, lest the chrism flow down, and that the confirmed may understand with how great study he ought to guard the grace received. This ceremony the Roman Pontifical prescribes. Formerly the forehead of the confirmed remained bound for seven days. Then the time was contracted to three days, at last to twenty-four hours; but in this let the customs of each Church be observed. Those fillets cannot be converted to profane use, but ought to be burned.

Caius, a missionary in England, goes around the district to learn who ought to be confirmed by the Bishop who is soon to come. He finds Tullius, a Catholic head of a family, who denies that he has ever been confirmed. Asked how this happened, he says that out of shame he did not come to be confirmed as a boy at the appointed time, and that for the same reason he did not afterwards dare confess this to the priest. Caius persuades him at least now to receive a sacrament so necessary in our days, but doubts whether, because of his neglect, Tullius ought to make a general confession from boyhood. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the matter and form of Confirmation?

2. When and by whom is it to be conferred?

3. Is it a necessary sacrament?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the matter and form of Confirmation?

The common opinion is that the anointing with chrism, together with the simultaneous imposition of the hand of the bishop on the forehead of the confirmed person while he makes on it the sign of the cross with the chrism, is the adequate and essential matter of the sacrament. 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 Ghost.”¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 67 f.

2. When and by whom is Confirmation to be administered?

According to modern discipline Confirmation is given to baptized persons who have attained the use of reason and have been well instructed in Christian doctrine. The bishop of the diocese is the ordinary minister of Confirmation; a priest may be delegated by the Pope to administer it.

3. Is it a necessary sacrament?

It is not necessary necessitate medii; whether it is necessary necessitate praecepti is a disputed point among theologians. St. Thomas with many other approved authors deny that it is.²

2 Ibid., p. 74.

4. The case. Tullius neglected to receive Confirmation not out of contempt but from shyness. As is clear from the dispute among theologians, it is not certain that in doing this he committed a mortal sin, and no one should be held guilty of mortal sin unless it is clear and certain that he has committed mortal sin. Tullius, therefore, should not be obliged to make a general confession, unless indeed he thought that he sinned mortally by acting as he did.

Case.—Father Gilbert, at a Confirmation in his parish, acted as one of the sponsors for the boys, while a sister of the parish school exercised the same office for the girls. On another occasion he asked parents to stand as sponsors for their own children.

Questions:

1. Does the Church allow nuns to be sponsors for children in their reception of Confirmation?

2. Are parents allowed to be sponsors for this Sacrament?

3. Are priests permitted to act in this capacity?

Solution.—1. The Church has enacted a law whereby Religious (stricte dicti) are forbidden to act as sponsors either for the Sacrament of Baptism or of Confirmation. The reason for this is clear. The Church has always looked upon the obligation of a sponsor as a real and a sacred one. She commands under pain of sin that sponsors be had for both these Sacraments and she desires that the faithful be instructed as to the meaning and duties of this position. Moreover, she wishes them to realize that sponsorship is no mere matter of form. Hence she seeks to admit only those who can properly and conscientiously fulfill the duties of this relationship. Now Religious, at least those who have taken solemn vows, cannot live up to the obligations demanded of sponsors. They are no longer masters of their own time or will and the duties of community life absolutely interfere with the fulfillment of the duties of sponsors. Hence the Church wisely declares that she will not accept such Religious as god-parents, even for Confirmation. Members of religious Orders who are not bound by solemn vows are not affected by the letter of this law; they are, however, by its spirit; for the selfsame reason operates in their case, as in the case of the religious of the solemn vow. While this view would hold true as a general rule, yet circumstances might arise which would make an exception advisable or even necessary. Where no other sponsors could be had then Nuns of the simple vow, as, for instance, Sisters of Charity, or Dominican or Franciscan Sisters, could legitimately be used as god-parents. Such was the tenor of the decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 15, 1887.

Again, if a religious is to be confirmed, then, indeed, a fellow religious may and should be selected as a sponsor, for in this case the purpose of the Church in requiring sponsors can be better realized by a religious than by one who is not. So that, absolutely speaking, when necessity requires it, a Nun (positis ponendis) may act as a god-parent.

2. Parents may act as god-parents for their own children when there is no one else to assume this role. However they are not sponsors in the legal sense of the term, but only act the part materialiter, by assisting the priest to carry out the ceremonies. Hence the Holy Office decided (Sept. 15, 1869), that spiritual relationship was not produced by such sponsorship.

3. Priests are permitted to become sponsors except when they administer the Sacrament. In this latter case they are strictly forbidden to assume the rôle of sponsor. This was manifested by the decree of the Congregation of the Propaganda, September 21, 1843.