Who may confirm, and where

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.

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).

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

“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.

“...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.

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.

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.

267. • I. The Bishop alone is the ordinary Minister of this Sacrament. Thus Innocent III and the Council of Trent declared, sess. 7, can. 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.

II. A simple Priest can confirm as extraordinary Minister from the special delegation of the Supreme Pontiff. This is clear from the practice of the Church and from the Bull of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis tempore. - See St. Ligorius, n. 170. - But the Priest must use chrism blessed by a Bishop. This is clear from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said that the matter of Confirmation is chrism blessed by a Bishop.

268. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the Pope is able to delegate also to a simple Priest the power of making chrism?

It is controverted. Not a few affirm with St. Ligorius, n. 163; but several others deny.

QUESTION 2. Whether a Bishop can confirm faithful who are not his subjects?

Resp. 1. As to validity, he can confirm all, as follows from the power of Order.

Resp. 2. As to 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, 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 strangers 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. - St. Ligorius, n. 173.

269. • QUESTION 3. When is a Bishop bound to confirm?

Resp. 1. He is bound to confirm those asking, whenever he conveniently can, if he cannot defer it to another proximate time.

Resp. 2. He is also bound at times to provide 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. - St. Ligorius, n. 175. - Lacroix, n. 388, and others commonly.

QUESTION 4. Whether a Bishop sins gravely by omitting to confirm a dying person asking for the Sacrament?

Resp. No, at least probably. The reason is that since this Sacrament is not necessary for salvation, the inconvenience of going to sick persons lying in their own homes excuses. It is also confirmed by common practice. - St. Ligorius, n. 175. - Lacroix, n. 390 ¹.

¹ From those things which Lacroix brings forward in this place, you will gather that more probably a Bishop in the case does not sin gravely; but probably he is not bound even by light fault, when inconvenience excuses. But whether the common practice is that of not ministering when it can conveniently be done, I would not dare to say.

— I. The ordinary minister of valid confirmation is every and only bishop; but the extraordinary minister, from a faculty made either by common law or by a peculiar indult of the Apostolic See, can be any priest, so that a priest can be said to be the remote minister of this sacrament. Cf. c. 782, §§1, 2.

With this faculty received, the presbyter indeed acquires no jurisdiction, but his power of order, which he has incomplete, is perfected. But that the Supreme Pontiff alone and no other bishop can give this necessary complement seems to be attributed to a reservation made by the Supreme Pontiff. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 133, 134.

All priests of the Greek rite obtain this faculty. In the Latin Church, by law itself the following are endowed with that faculty: Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church (c. 239, §1, n. 23), an abbot or prelate nullius, an Apostolic Vicar and Prefect; but these latter three cannot validly use it except within the limits of their territory and only while the function lasts (c. 782, §3).

Besides, "a presbyter of the Latin rite to whom, by force of an indult, this faculty belongs, validly confers confirmation only on the faithful of his own rite, unless in the indult something else has been expressly provided" (c. 782, §4).

Therefore a faculty given by the law itself is not circumscribed by this exception.

But priests of an oriental rite who at the same time baptize and confirm infants of their own rite are prohibited from conferring confirmation on infants of the Latin rite (c. 732, §5). The confirmation conferred nevertheless more probably is valid.

— In his own diocese, a bishop legitimately administers confirmation even to outsiders, unless express prohibition of their own Ordinary stands in the way; but in another diocese, he is permitted to minister confirmation to his own subjects privately and without staff and miter. That he minister it solemnly, he needs license of the local Ordinary at least reasonably presumed (c. 783).

Before the Code, they demanded, and indeed under grave guilt, the tacit consent of one's own Ordinary that outside subjects be legitimately confirmed. Yet they permitted that this consent be presumed, both as to those who ran in from another diocese, and as to one to be ordained who had received dimissorial letters for orders from his own bishop.

A Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, if he is a bishop, by force of his faculty, n. 63, can confirm in the whole dominion subject to his jurisdiction and during a sea voyage, both in going to and returning from the place of his mission.

— A bishop must, by grave obligation, minister the sacrament of confirmation to his subjects duly and reasonably asking it, especially at the time of the visitation of the diocese (c. 785, §1).

The same is the office of a presbyter furnished with apostolic privilege, toward those in whose favor the faculty has been conceded (c. 785, §2).

Indeed the Ordinary who is prohibited from confirming by himself must provide, as much as can be done, that at least within any five-year period this sacrament be administered to his subjects (c. 785, §3).

Wherefore, after the Code, we judge that an Ordinary sins gravely who has neglected this administration beyond five years, although formerly they judged a delay grave after eight or ten years.

Concerning the negligence of a bishop, the Metropolitan must make the Roman Pontiff certain from cc. 785, §4 and 274, 4°.

— On the Subject. 1. All and only the baptized not yet confirmed are validly confirmed.

2. From among the baptized not yet confirmed, the following are licitly and fruitfully confirmed: a) adults who, constituted in the state of grace, are sufficiently instructed; b) the perpetually insane. Nor in those who have been masters of themselves is there need that they previously asked this sacrament, because in the profession of Christian life there is had a sufficient will of this sacrament. Therefore it is enough that the insane person be in the state of grace; and he is presumed to be in that state, unless the contrary is at least vehemently suggested; c) infants constituted in danger of death, or those for whom it seems expedient to the minister because of just and grave causes (c. 788). These causes can exist if a long absence of the bishop is foreseen, or if it is feared that the infant will die before another occasion of the sacrament.

With these causes excluded, administration of confirmation is conveniently deferred in the Latin Church to around the seventh year of age (c. 788), so that a sacrament less necessary may be received with greater reverence and in a more conscious manner.

But the dignity of this sacrament demands this: that those to be confirmed be thoroughly instructed concerning the special grace of this sacrament, that is, of fortitude, especially of intrepid confession of faith. This will be the occasion of inculcating in Christian adolescents that noble manliness which despises exterior human fears and, stronger, overcomes the interior attacks of temptations. And it is to be wished that so great a sacrament be held at a greater price.

— 1. The sacrament of confirmation has no necessity of means. Yet for a dying person who cannot confess or be anointed by extreme unction, the sacrament could become necessary.

2. The necessity of precept itself was commonly denied before the Code, both because the negligent are punished by no penalty, and because the obligation is gathered neither from Scripture or tradition, nor from the end or institution of the sacrament. Yet they admitted that an obligation of receiving it could arise per accidens for avoiding scandal, or, with persecution pressing, if someone fears that in torments he may fail in strength.

But now from c. 787, "it is lawful for no one, when occasion is offered, to neglect it"; so that this negligence, which betrays a certain sloth or lesser esteem, must be blamed at least venially. Besides, by the same canon, an obligation is imposed on pastors of taking care that the faithful approach it at an opportune time.

In the Greek Church, all infants are fortified by this sacrament. The same can be affirmed concerning the children of Catholics in the City also, since the custom is that some bishop be called to a dying infant to confirm him. But elsewhere, because of the rarity of bishops, very many infants die not confirmed.

If someone considers these things, does he not begin to grieve over this unequal condition of children, and to inquire into the manner by which morally an occasion may be given to all of obtaining in the soul that new character which by this sacrament is imprinted in the soul? Now much more easily today, by common law itself, the faculty of confirming is communicated to presbyters. Could not faculties be conceded, in places where bishops are few, to deans or archpriests for confirming children placed in danger of death? Those who are eminent in authority will judge concerning the opportuneness of the matter; yet it will be lawful for us to have it among our wishes.

3. Those to be ordained or to be initiated by first tonsure should indeed first be confirmed. Yet omission is not thought mortal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 786). Navarrus (Manuale, c. 22, n. 9) adds that not even a bishop sins mortally who ordains one not confirmed or himself not confirmed.

159. 2. The extraordinary minister of confirmation is a priest to whom that faculty has been granted either by common law or by a particular indult of the Holy See. Thus teaches the certain opinion, which is confirmed both by the Council of Florence⁵⁶ and by the constant practice of the Church. The Code of Canon Law, c. 782, § 2, establishes the same. Durandus, Estius, and a few others contradicted it. This delegation is granted by the Supreme Pontiff alone, who nevertheless sometimes commits to a bishop the designation of one or another priest to administer the sacrament of confirmation.⁵⁷ By the law itself the following are delegated: Cardinals; an abbot or prelate nullius; an Apostolic Vicar; and an Apostolic Prefect. But the latter three cannot validly administer this sacrament, unless they are bishops, outside the boundaries of their territory or after their office has expired.⁵⁸ A delegated priest must observe those things which are prescribed to him in the instrument of delegation with respect to places, times, persons, and so forth. Especially, however, he cannot confirm except with chrism blessed by a Catholic bishop, and not by a schismatic bishop. Moreover, before the solemn administration of this sacrament he must always expressly admonish the people in the vernacular language that he is the minister of confirmation only by a special delegation. This admonition does not pertain to the validity of the administration, but it must by all means be made.⁵⁹

In the Greek Church all priests, even schismatics, confirm validly, unless this power has been expressly taken away from them, as, for example, in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, and so forth. The Holy Office replied several times, for example, on July 5, 1853, April 2, 1879, and January 14, 1885, that it is not expedient that those who were confirmed by schismatic priests be anointed again by a bishop, unless there is among them someone who is to be promoted to Tonsure and Orders, or unless they themselves or their parents request it; in that case the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred secretly and, ordinarily, conditionally. It is forbidden for priests of the Eastern rite who enjoy the faculty or privilege of conferring confirmation together with baptism upon infants of their own rite to administer the same to infants of the Latin rite.⁶⁰ It is established generally: A priest who shall have presumed to transgress the limits of the faculty granted to him for administering confirmation is by that very fact deprived of the same faculty.⁶¹

⁵⁶ Denz., n. 697.

⁵⁷ Cf. Holy Office, May 4, 1903, and Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, Pentecost 1934 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXVII, 11 sqq.).

⁵⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 782, § 3.

⁵⁹ Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, September 11, 1841 (Collectan. de Prop. Fide, nn. 940 and 1539).

⁶⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 782, § 5.

⁶¹ Ibid., c. 2365.

S. Th. III, q. 72, a. 11.

186. The ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop alone (can. 782, § 1), because by force of his order and office he can validly administer the sacrament without special commission of the Supreme Pontiff. - This is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, on Confirmation, can. 3, and sess. 23, can. 7, confirming the doctrine and decisions of Innocent I, Gelasius, Innocent III, and the Council of Florence. It is hinted in the Scriptures, Acts VIII, 12-17, and is clear from most ancient tradition and practice, the fittingness of which St. Thomas shows, a. 11:

"In any work the final consummation is reserved to the supreme art or power, just as the preparation of the matter pertains to lower craftsmen, but the superior gives the form...; whence a letter which is written by a notary is signed by the lord. But the faithful of Christ are in a certain way a divine work, according to that saying, I Cor. III, 9: You are the building of God; they are also, as it were, a certain epistle written by the Spirit of God, as is said in II Cor. III, 3. But this sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, the final consummation of the sacrament of Baptism, namely in this way, that through Baptism man is built into a spiritual house and is written, as it were, as a certain spiritual epistle; but through the sacrament of Confirmation, as a house already built is dedicated into a temple of the Holy Spirit, and as an epistle already written is signed with the sign of the cross. And therefore the conferral of this sacrament is reserved to bishops, who hold supreme power in the Church, just as also in the primitive Church through the imposition of hands of the apostles, whose places bishops hold, the fullness of the Holy Spirit was given."

But in order that a bishop may confirm licitly, ordinary jurisdiction is required, or permission at least reasonably presumed from him who has such jurisdiction. Hence can. 783:

§ 1. "A bishop in his diocese legitimately administers this sacrament even to outsiders, unless the express prohibition of their own Ordinary stands in the way." This holds also for exempt places according to can. 792.

§ 2. "In another diocese he needs the permission of the Ordinary of the place, at least reasonably presumed, unless it is a matter of his own subjects, to whom he confers Confirmation privately and without staff and miter."

The obligation is of itself grave, and therefore a bishop who would dare to transgress these prescriptions in some point would sin gravely.

187. The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is a presbyter to whom the faculty has been granted either by common law or by a peculiar or general indult of the Apostolic See (can. 782, § 2). - This is certain from the Council of Florence and from the perpetual use of the Church.

But whether a bishop of himself could confer this faculty upon a presbyter is doubtful, because such delegation of a simple priest is not referred to the power of order but to the power of jurisdiction. Hence if formerly this was done, it can be said to have been done with the tacit consent of the Apostolic See, whereas now it is provided by canonical law that it not be done: for at present that right is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, nor is it validly exercised without his permission granted by law or indult.

Concerning this faculty committed to priests, the following dispositions are to be noted:

1. By the law itself, besides Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, to whom it belongs everywhere on earth, the Abbot or Prelate nullius, the Vicar and Prefect Apostolic enjoy this faculty; yet they cannot validly use it except within the boundaries of their territory and only while their office lasts (can. 782, § 3).

2. According to the common law, a presbyter of the Latin rite to whom this faculty belongs by force of indult (and not from common law) validly confers Confirmation on the faithful of his own rite alone, unless something else has been expressly provided in the indult (can. 782, § 4). - By decree of May 1, 1948, it was granted that whenever presbyters of the Latin rite, by force of a legitimate indult, can validly and licitly administer the sacrament of Confirmation to the faithful of their own rite, they may be able to confer the same - provided it is certain that it was not already conferred immediately after Baptism, as is the custom - also upon the faithful of Eastern rites whose spiritual care remains committed to them. These things hold also whenever the sacrament can be conferred according to the norm of the decree "On administering Confirmation to those who, from grave illness, are constituted in danger of death" (cf. below n. 5).

3. It is forbidden for presbyters of an Eastern rite, who enjoy the faculty or privilege of conferring Confirmation together with Baptism on infants of their own rite, to administer the same to infants of the Latin rite (can. 782, § 5).

They enjoy this faculty generally by force of immemorial custom, with certain exceptions such as the Maronites and Italo-Greeks; whence the administration of Confirmation to a Latin infant, although illicit, nevertheless seems rather to be valid, although some doubt concerning this.

4. It is also lawful for a presbyter, if he is furnished with an apostolic local (not merely personal) privilege, to confirm even outsiders in the territory designated for him, unless their own Ordinary has expressly forbidden it (can. 784).

5. Through the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera of the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, by general indult there is granted to all pastors enjoying their own territory, quasi-pastors, perpetual vicars, vicar administrators, and priests to whom exclusively and stably there has been committed, in a certain territory and with a determinate church, the full care of souls with all the rights and duties of pastors, the faculty that, by themselves, they administer the sacrament of Confirmation, in their own territory, to those persons who dwell there (not excepting pilgrims nor those staying in places withdrawn from parochial jurisdiction) and who from grave illness are constituted in true danger of death, whether they are infants or adults. - Yet it is required that the diocesan Bishop cannot be had or is impeded, nor is another Catholic Bishop present, even only titular, who can take his place without grave inconvenience. - If the dying are still capable of this, they ought, as far as possible, to be prepared for the fruitful reception of this sacrament; and, if perhaps they recover, they are to be more fully instructed.

Moreover, let the norms be observed which the same decree prescribes: "Confirmation is to be conferred with the discipline introduced by the C.I.C. and adapted to the matter being observed, and also with the rite used from the Roman Ritual excerpted, which are transcribed fully and completely below: moreover it is to be conferred gratis under any title."

"According to the norm of canon 798, the extraordinary minister is to make the notation of the sacrament conferred in the parochial book of those confirmed, inscribing there his own name and the names of the confirmed person (and if he is not his subject, also of that one's diocese and parish), of the parents and sponsor, the day and place, finally adding the words: 'Confirmation was conferred from Apostolic indult, with danger of death pressing, on account of the grave illness of the confirmed person.' The notation is to be made also in the book of the baptized according to the norm of can. 470, § 2.

If the confirmed person is of another parish, as soon as possible the minister himself should inform the proper pastor of the confirmed person concerning the sacrament conferred by an authentic document, which contains all the notices mentioned above."

"Extraordinary ministers are moreover bound, each time, immediately to send to their own diocesan Ordinary an authentic notice of the Confirmation conferred by them, with all adjunct circumstances concurring in the case added."¹

¹ The decree exists in A.A.S., t. 38 (1946), pp. 349-358. - In almost all periodicals treating theological or canonical matters, commentaries on this decree have appeared.

188. The obligation of administering Confirmation. - The Bishop is bound to administer the sacrament of Confirmation to subjects duly and reasonably seeking it, especially at the time of the visitation of the diocese (can. 785, § 1), which must be completed every five years (can. 343, § 1); but not with danger of death, because it is not a sacrament of necessity, unless perhaps in a case in which scandal would arise from non-administration. The presbyter endowed with apostolic privilege is held by the same obligation toward those in whose favor the faculty has been granted (can. 785, § 2).

The obligation by its nature is grave, unless a grave reason excuses. Whence an Ordinary impeded by a legitimate cause or lacking the power of confirming ought, insofar as it can be done, to provide at least within each five-year period that this sacrament be administered to his subjects (§ 3).

But if he has gravely neglected to administer the sacrament of Confirmation to his subjects either by himself or through another, the Metropolitan must denounce him to the Holy See (§ 4 and can. 274, 4°).

A presbyter who has neither from law nor from concession of the Roman Pontiff the faculty, if he has dared to administer the sacrament of Confirmation, is to be suspended; but if he has presumed to overstep the limits of the faculty given, he is deprived by that very fact of the same faculty (can. 2365).

By decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, of December 18, 1947, there is moreover granted to Ordinaries of places dependent on the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith the power of giving "to all priests subject to them and exercising the care of souls, the faculty of validly administering sacred Confirmation to the faithful, whether adults or infants, existing within the boundaries of the missionary circumscription and constituted in danger of death; and also licitly in the very place of residence of the Bishop, with any Bishop absent or legitimately impeded; and with the formula established by the Roman Ritual observed" (A.A.S., t. 40 (1948), p. 41).

189. Observation. - Theologians do not agree in declaring the manner by which a simple priest obtains the power of administering Confirmation. It seems better to say that for conferring this sacrament there is required an excellent dignity, which belongs fully to bishops from their own character, but to priests not absolutely and fully, but only radically and inchoatively; whence they need an extrinsic increase of dignity by which their character is ordered to a new effect, namely, the conferral of Confirmation. But this supplement of dignity is conferred on them by a special deputation of the Pontiff, so that their inchoate power, with delegation acceding, is extended and completed. For the Pontiff, who has the fullness of power in the Church, is able to commit the lowest functions of the superior episcopal office which regard the mystical body of Christ, such as is the power of confirming, to those who already have the highest power concerning the true body of Christ, namely priests.²

² Cf. St. Thomas, a. 11, ad 1; and IV Sent., d. 7, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 3; Billuart, art. 7, obj. 2; Billot, o.c. th. 36; Hugon, Tract. Dogm. III, on Confirmation, a. 5. - De Smet proposes another opinion, o.c. n. 401.

Question. When is a Bishop bound to confirm?

Resp. § 1. A Bishop is held by the obligation of conferring this sacrament upon subjects duly and reasonably asking, especially at the time of the visitation of the diocese.

§ 2. A presbyter endowed with apostolic privilege is held by the same obligation toward those in whose favor the faculty has been granted.

§ 3. An Ordinary impeded by a legitimate cause or lacking the power of confirming must, insofar as can be done, provide at least within any five-year period that this sacrament be administered to his subjects.

§ 4. If he has gravely neglected to minister the Sacrament of Confirmation to his subjects through himself or through another, the prescription of can. 274, n. 4 is to be observed (Can. 785).

Question 8. To whom can a Bishop and a privileged presbyter confer this Sacrament?

Resp. § 1. A Bishop in his own diocese legitimately ministers this sacrament even to outsiders, unless an express prohibition of their own Ordinary stands in the way.

§ 2. In another diocese he needs the permission of the local Ordinary at least reasonably presumed, unless there is question of his own subjects, to whom he confers confirmation privately and without staff and mitre (Can. 783).

It is also licit for a presbyter, if he is furnished with an apostolic local privilege, to confirm even outsiders in the territory designated to him, unless their Ordinaries have expressly forbidden this (Can. 784).

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.