Introduction. About the Idea or Definition of Confirmation

5. About this distinction many things can be asked, proportionally to those that were asked about baptism.

6. But I preface a certain idea of this sacrament, from which the solution to many of the questions is plain.

I. Statement of the Definition

7. And on the supposition that the total foundation of the relation (which relation is formal in this sacrament) is an anointing determined by many other requisite conditions, the following idea can be assigned to it:

“Confirmation or the sacrament of confirmation is the anointing of a man a wayfarer, in some way consenting or having never used free choice, put on the forehead in the shape of a cross, with blessed chrism, and this by a suitable minister with due intention in the anointing, speaking certain words, efficaciously signifying by divine institution the anointing of the soul by strengthening grace for confessing with confidence the faith of Christ.”

II. Explanation of the Definition

8. It is plain here what the matter of this sacrament is (but because a distinction about the matter could be drawn just as was drawn in the case of the matter of baptism, in distinction 3 [nn.99-104]), that the proximate matter (namely the visible thing which is concurrent in the foundation) is the anointing in the shape of a cross done on the forehead with sanctified chrism; but the remote matter is the chrism composed of olive oil and balsam and specially sanctified by the bishop, or by someone else to whom such sanctification will be able to be committed.

9. The form is of this sort: “I sign or seal you with the sign of the cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation or sanctification in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

10. The receiver is man a wayfarer in some way consenting, which is to be understood just as it was about baptism, as is plain in distinction 4 [nn.63-82]. But this receiver is only a receiver as to a determinate part, for which reason ‘on the forehead’ is added [n.7].

11. Now the minister is the bishop or someone else to whom it will be able to be committed;     therefore is it said in general ‘by a suitable minister’. On the part of the minister is required simultaneity in doing both acts, namely the act of anointing and of speaking the form, and due intention - all which things must be understood in the way expounded of the minister in baptism, in distinction 6 [nn.26-153].

12. The words that are added ‘efficaciously signifying etc     .’ state that which is formal in this sacrament.

13. And what is added at the end, ‘the interior anointing [sc. of the soul]’, signifies what is correlative in the relation that is formal in this sacrament.

III. Objections against the Definition

14. And if, first, it is objected [William of Melitona, Bonaventure] against the matter and form together, that Christ did not thus institute it (as is plain in John 20.22, when he breathed on them and gave the disciples the Holy Spirit, and Acts 2.3 when after the sending of the Holy Spirit they were confirmed with tongues of fire), and the Apostles too did not use this sort of form or matter (as is plain in Acts [8.17, 19.6]) but used the imposition of hands;

15. And if it is also objected [William of Melitona] specifically against the matter that it does not have to be consecrated chrism, because neither is consecrated water necessary in baptism, for any water is enough;

16. If it is objected third [Richard of Middleton] that an ordinary priest can confer this sacrament, according to Gratian Decretum p.1 d.95 ch.1, and it is in the text [Lombard, Sent. IV d.7 ch.2 n.1-2], where Gregory the Great writes to Bishop Januarius, “It has reached us that certain people have been scandalized by the fact that we have prohibited priests from anointing with chrism those who have been baptized.” And there follows, “If any are distressed about this matter, we concede that, where bishops are lacking, priests too should anoint the baptized with chrism on the forehead.”

IV. Response to the Objections

A. To the First Objection

17. To the first of these [n.14] it must be said that Christ did not tie his power to the sacraments [Lombard, Sent. IV d.4 ch.4 n.10]. And so he himself, whether on earth or existing in heaven after his ascension, was able to confirm the Apostles without such matter and such form. Also he was able to make dispensation for the Apostles in the primitive Church, and especially when there were some perceptible signs in the confirmation conferred by them, as commonly the descent of the Holy Spirit on the confirmed and the gift of tongues.

18. But however, when such miracles ceased, ministers had to keep this matter and this form. For the supposition is that it was instituted by God, though the time and manner of this institution is not read in Scripture, perhaps because the historiographers did not take Scripture up to that time. For they did not take it beyond the time of the Apostles, nor even up to several years before their death; for in the whole time of the Apostles the gift of tongues perhaps remained in the sacrament of confirmation.

19. Nor is it improbable that many things were handed on by the authority of the Church through the Apostles that are not read in Scripture, as Damascene says [Orthodox Faith ch.86], where, speaking of the adoration of images, he says, “Truly this tradition was handed on to us, how to adore the cross facing east, and many other things like these.”

B. To the Second Objection

20. To the second [n.15] one must say that Christ by touch of his most pure flesh consecrated all water for the use of baptism, but not thus did he touch the determinate matter of confirmation; and therefore a special sanctification is required. And this is more reasonable here than there, because baptism is a sacrament of necessity and can therefore be conferred by any minister; and it is reasonable that it is done in non-consecrated water, otherwise suitable matter could not be common and the salvation of many would be impeded.

C. To the Third Objection

1. First Way of Speaking and its Rejection

21. As to the third objection [n.16] there are four ways of speaking [about it]:

First that the Pope conceded that priests could anoint on the forehead with oil but not with chrism [Hugh of St. Victor, Albert the Great].

22. But this is against the text of the letter, as is plain in the same place in the afore cited chapter [n.16].

23. Again he conceded this because some were scandalized for its being taken away; but if he had conceded it to be done with oil alone, as if showing it were done with chrism, it would be pretense and against the truth of doctrine, just as if blessed bread were permitted to be given in place of the Eucharist.

2. Second Way of Speaking and its Rejection

24. The second way of speaking is that he conceded it, or rather permitted it, for a time to avoid scandal [Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas].

25. But this is a nothing, because “it is more useful for scandal to be permitted to arise than for truth to be abandoned” [Gregory IX, Decretals V tit.41 ch.3].

26. Again, Gregory [the Great] would have sinned mortally in making this concession if he had conceded de facto what he could not have conceded de iure; and he would have given priests an occasion for sinning mortally, namely for doing what it was not licit for them to do.

3. Third Way of Speaking and its Proof by Authorities

27. There can be two other probable ways of speaking:This third way and the fourth [n.44], contra the Vatican editors who think the third way is divided into two ways; but the two ways are really two authorities [n.28] proving the same way. ⁶³

One is this, that in the primitive Church there was no difference between priests and bishops.

28. This is proved through two authorities from Jerome, which are set down in Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.95 ch.5.

a. First Authority and the Weighing of It

29. The first of these is in the chapter ‘Once’ (the second in the following chapter [n.37]), and it is titled ‘Jerome, On the Epistle to Titus [1.5]’: “Once,” he says, “the priest was the same as he who was bishop: they [sc. the faithful] were ruled by the common council of the priests of the Church until, by a diabolical instinct, passions arose and it was said in their meals [I Corinthians 1.12, cf. also 1.11, 31; 3.3; 5.8], ‘I am of Paul, and I of Apollos’. But after each thought those whom he was baptizing to be his own and not

Christ’s, a decree in the whole world was made so that one of the priests might be set up as superior and the seeds of schisms be taken away.” And a little later, “Just as the priests know that they are, by the custom of the Church, subjected to him who has been set up over them, so let the bishops know that more by custom than by the truth of our Lord’s dispensation are they greater than the priests, and that they must rule the Church in common.”

30. Again, Jerome, To the Priest Evangelius [Epistle 46 n.1], and it is in Decretum “We have read” [Gratian, p.1 d.93 ch.24], “Since the Apostle clearly teaches that the bishops are the same as those who are priests,” which he proves there by many authorities. And below, “At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist up to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the priests used always to choose one from among themselves and place him at a higher rank, whom they called bishop [literally = ‘overseer’], in the way an army may, if it do, appoint a general, and the deacons may choose from themselves one whom they know to be industrious and title him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do that, apart from ordination, a priest does not do?” The response of the Gloss there [Gloss on Decretum, p.1 d.93 ch.24]: “In ‘ordination’ are understood the other things that are not done save by bishops.” But this is explained as “not done licitly.” For that these things may absolutely be done [sc. by priests] is proved by the preceding gloss, where there is disputation about that in which the preferment is made to be, whether in office or in name; and at the end the gloss says, “the preferment is made as to administration and certain sacraments that are now appropriated to bishops.”

31. From this a twofold argument is made:

First thus: if such a preferment of bishops over priests was made after the Apostles, then it was not so from the beginning of the Church.

32. Again [second], if now these things [n.30] are made proper to someone, then they were before not proper from the beginning.

33. I reply: if from the beginning there was some act proper to a bishop (as Jerome says: what can a bishop do that, besides consecration, a priest cannot do?; the gloss understands the other things through ‘consecration’ [n.30]), it follows that there was from the beginning a difference between bishops and priests. And then the authorities do not prove the opposite but are to be explained as the Gloss does [ibid. n.30], namely that perhaps “the names were synonymous and the administration (that is the governance of the Church) was common.”

34. But not, however, was all dispensing of the sacraments common. This is proved in Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.21 ch.2, “In place of the Apostles bishops arose;” but “the priests bore the pattern of the seventy-two disciples” [Luke 10.1-24]. Therefore, the distinction between bishop and simple priest was made by Christ.

35. To the contrary:

Was not Philip, and Stephen and the others of the seventy-two disciples, deacons and not priests?

36. Again: “I left you in Crete” for this, that you might ordain “priests” [Titus 1.5]; so a non-bishop could not do this.The point seems to be that if, as n.34 says, the bishops were those who took the place of the Apostles after their death, then Titus, who was not an Apostle but lived in the time of the Apostles, could not have been a bishop. Yet he was ordaining priests, which requires a bishop’s power. Therefore he was a bishop. Therefore it cannot be that bishops were those who succeeded to the Apostles after their death. ⁶⁴

b. Second Authority and the Weighing of It

37. This is also proved by the following chapter [n.29, Gratian, Decretum p.1 d.95 ch.6; taken from Ps.Jerome On the Seven Orders of the Church ch.6], and it is founded on the word of Paul to Timothy [I Timothy 4.14], “Do not neglect the grace given to you by the imposition of the hands of the priest,” where he does not draw a distinction, “since priests are also called bishops, according to what is said to a bishop ‘Do not neglect the grace given to you     etc .’ and elsewhere [Acts 20.17, 28] ‘[Paul] to the elders: He who placed you bishops to rule his Church’.” These the words of Jerome.

38 Paul does not distinguish, therefore     , the priest from the bishop, because he does not say that confirmation was given by the bishop alone, but he speaks of the priesthood.

39. Nor too in Acts is a distinction of priests from the Apostles, who were bishops, read of.

40. And if this is true, then to give confirmation could have belonged to every priest from his office, just as also to a bishop, because there was not, from first institution, another rank in the Church.

41. However afterwards, because of necessity, priests were multiplied and episcopal power as to some things was drawn away from them, and to the greater priests alone, who are called bishops, were certain things reserved, and ‘to confirm’ was such an act.

42. If this is true, Gregory [n.16] was well able to give the priests subject to Bishop Januarius license to confirm, because in this he did not concede an unfitting power to them but revoked a prohibition previously imposed on them.

43. If against this you object [Gandulphus Bononiensis, Alexander of Hales, William of Melitona, Thomas Aquinas] that according to these views, since in the primitive Church others besides the Apostles are not read to have confirmed, if then any of the priests was a a bishop, or equal to them as to this act, then it was, of their office, owed to bishops alone - I reply that either none other than the Apostles were priests, because the Apostles were then able to suffice, or if others were priests they deferred to the Apostles in this act, because of the evident manifestation of the Holy Spirt that used to happen in the conferring of this sacrament, so that it might be received with greater devotion because of the excellence of the ministers, and might be received in greater reverence.

4. Fourth Way of Speaking

44. The fourth way of speaking is that, if from the beginning confirming was not licit for a common priest, the Pope was able to make any priest of the region a bishop as to this act, not however by conferring on him simply the episcopal rank, nor conferring it on him as to other acts; and then any of them truly gave confirmation as a bishop as to this act. And the reason for conferring this rank on any priest as to this act could have been avoiding the scandal of the people.

45. Now the remote matter, namely the chrism, has a likeness to the effect of this sacrament. For oil has a luster, and it is supreme over other liquids, and it is the matter proper for burning. By the first it signifies chastity or purity, by the other two it signifies charity. Balsam, which has a good odor, signifies good report, according to the verse of II Corinthians 2.15, “We are to God the good odor of Christ.” With balsam too are the bodies of the dead embalmed lest they putrefy; therefore it signifies incorruptibility.

46. Through this matter, then, namely chrism made of oil and balsam, is signified that the one confirmed must have purity and charity and good report, since without these the confirmation of the Christian faith will not be much authentic.