Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/262

 CONFIRMATION

220

CONFIRMATION

and St. Thomas) and Franciscans (Alexander of Hales, St. Bona venture, and Duns Scotus). As we shall see, the clearness with which the various questions were set forth by no means produced unanimity; rather it served to bring out the uncertainty with regard to them all. The writers start from the fact that there was in the Church a ceremony of anointing with chrism accompanied with the words: "I sign tliee with the sign of the cross ", etc. ; this ceremony was performed by a bishop only, and could not be repeated. When they came to e.xamine the doctrine underlying this jiractice they all admitted that it was a sacrament, though in the earlier writers the word sacrament had not yet acquired a distinct technical meaning. So strongly did they insist upon the principle Lex oramli, lex credendi, that they took for granted that the anoint- ing must be the matter, and the words " I sign thee", etc., the form, and that no one but a bishop could be the valid minister. But when they came to justify this doctrine by the authority of Scripture they en- countered the difficulty that no mention is made there either of the anointing or of the words; indeed noth- ing is said of the institution of the sacrament at all. What could be the meaning of this silence? How could it be explained?

(a) Regarding the institution there were three opin- ions. The Dominican School taught that Christ Himself was the immediate author of confirmation. Earlier writers (e. g. Hugh of St. Victor, " De Sacram.", ii, and Peter Lombard, "Sent.", IV, dist. vii)held that it was instituted by the Holy Ghost through the instru- mentality of the Apostles. The Franciscans also maintained that the Holy Ghost was the author, but that He acted either through the Apostles or through the Church after the death of the Apostles. "Con- cerning the institution of this sacrament", says St. Thomas, "there are two opinions; some say that it was instituted neither by C'hrist nor by His Apostles, but later on in the course of time at a certain council [Meaux, 845; this was the opinion of Alexander of Hales, Summ., iv, q. 9, m.], whereas others said that it was instituted by the Apostles. But this cannot be the case because the institution of a sacrament be- longs to the power of excellence which is proper to Christ alone. And therefore we must hold that Christ instituted this sacrament, not by showing it [exhificn- d6\ but by promising it. according to the text (John, xvi, 7), ' If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you '. And this because in this sacrament the fullness of the Holy Ghost is given, which was not to be given before Christ's resur- rection and ascension, according to the text (John, vii, H9), ' As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified'" (Summ. III,Q. lxxii,a. l,ad 1). It will be noticed that the Angelic Doctor hesitates a lit- tle about the direct institution by Christ (non ex- hihendo, sed promittendo). In his earlier work (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1) he had said plainly that Christ had instituted the sacrament and had Himself ailmin- istered it (Matt., xix). In this opinion the saint was still under the influence of his master, Albert, who went so far as to hold that Christ had specified the chrism and the words, "I sign thee", etc. (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, a. 2). The opinion of Alexander of Hales, re- ferred to by St. Thomas, was as follows: the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost by mere imposition of hands; this rite, which wasnot properly a sacrament, wms con- tinued until the ninth century, when the Ihily (ihost insjured the Fathers of the Council of Moiiux in the choice of the matter and form, and endowed these with sacramental efficacy {Kpiritu Snnrlo iiixti(i<iiilr et rir- tutem fiiinrHlirandi prirxldiile). He was led Id this ex- traordinary view (u|[icli he states as nierely p<Tsonan by the fact tliat no mention is made in Holy Scripture either of the chrism or of the words; and a.s these were undoubtedly the matter and the form they could only have been introduced by Divine authority. His dis-

ciple, St. Bonaventure, agreed in rejecting the institu- tion by Christ or His Apostles, and in attributing it to the Holy Ghost; but he set back the time to the age of "the successors of the Apostles" (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, art. 1). However, like his friendly rival St. Thomas, he also modified his view in a later work (Bre- viloquium, p. vi. c. 4) where he says that Christ insti- tuted all the sacraments, though in different ways; " some by hinting at them and initiating them [insinu- ando et initiandu], as confirmation and extreme imction". Scotus seems to have felt the weight of the authority of the Dominican opinion, for he does not express himself clearly in favour of the views of his own order. He says that the rite was in- stituted by God (Jesus Christ? the Holy Ghost?); that it was instituted when Christ pronounced the words, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ", or on the day of Pentecost, but this may refer not to the rite but to the thing signified, viz. the gift of the Holy Ghost (In Sent., IV, dist. vii, q. 1; dist. ii, cj. 1). The Fathers of the Council of "Trent, as said above, did not expressly de- cide the question, but as they defined that all the sacra- ments were instituted by Christ, the Dominican teaching has prevailed. We shall see, however, that this is capable of many different meanings.

(b) The question of the institution of the sacrament is intimately bound up with the determination of the matter and form. All agreed that these consisted of the anointing (including the act of placing the hand upon the candidate) and the words, "I sign thee", or "I confirm thee", etc. Were this action and these words of Divine, or of Apostolic, or of merely ecclesias- tical origin? Blessed Albertus held that both were or- dained by Clirist Himself; others that they were the work of the Church ; but the common opinion was that they were of Apostolic origin. St. Thomas was of opinion that the Apostles actually made use of chrism and the words, Conxigno te, etc., and that they did so by Christ's command. The silence of Scrip- ture need not surprise us, he says, "for the Apostles observed many things in the administration of the sacraments which are not handed down by the Scrip- tures" (S. Theol., Ill, Q. Ixxii, a. .3 and 4).

(c) In proof of the reservation of the rite to bishops the Schoolmen appeal to the example of Acts, viii; and they go on to explain that as the sacrament is a sort of completion of baptism it is fitting that it should be conferred by "one who has the highest power [sutn- mam potestatem] in the Church" (St. Thomas, ibid., art. 11). They were aware, however, that in the prim- itive Church simple priests sometimes administered the sacrament. This they accounted for by the few- ness of bishops, and they recognized that the validity of such administration (unlike the case of Holy or- ders) is a mere matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. "The pope hokls the fullness of power in the Church, w^hence he can confer upon certain of the inferior or- ders things which belong to the higher orders. . . . And out of the fullness of this power the blessed pope Gregory granted that simple priests conferred this sacrament" (St. Thomas, ibid.).

(5) The Council of Trent did not decide the questions discussed by the Schoolmen. But the definition that "all the sacraments were instituted by Christ" (Sess. VII, can. i), excluded the opinion that the Holy Ghost ■was the author of confirmation. Still, nothing was said about the moilc of institution — wliethcr immedi- ate or mediate, generic or specific. The post-Triden- tine theologians have almost unanimously taught that Christ Himself was the immediate author of all the sacraments, and so of confirmation (cf. De Lugo, " De Sacr.am. in Gen.", disp. vii, .sect. 1; Tournely, "De Sacram. in Gen.", q. v, a. 1). "Hut the historical studies of the seventeenth century obliged authors to restrict the action of Christ in the institution of the sacraments to the determination of the spiritual ef- fect, leaving the choice of the rite to the Apostles and