ARTICLE ONE
THE INTEGRITY OF CONFIRMATION
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER A FORM OF WORDS IS NECESSARY IN CONFIRMATION
And that it is necessary to have a form of words in this sacrament is demonstrated:
a. Through likeness to the other sacraments. This is because if a form of words is necessary in the other sacraments, it would seem necessary in this one as well.
b. Again, the same is demonstrated through another reasoning: that the form of words itself is the sanctifying element. Further, as Hugh says, “a sacrament does its sanctifying from (this) sanctification.”1 Therefore it is necessary that it have a form of words, since through the form of words, the element becomes sanctifying.
But to the contrary: 1. It was Christ who instituted the form of the sacraments. However, it is nowhere read that he instituted the form of Confirmation. Indeed in Matthew 19:15 all he did was lay hands on the children. Therefore it is not necessary to have a form of words, because Christ instituted whatever pertains to the necessity and form of the other sacraments, but not for this one.
2. If you should say that he left the form to the Apostles, to the contrary in Acts 8:17, it says that they bestowed the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. However, the things necessary for a sacrament are not variable for that sacrament; therefore, etc.
Again there are questions concerning the form itself, which is as follows: “I sign you with the sign of the cross, I confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”2 First of all it would seem that the verb “I sign” is superfluous, because the act of signing itself is sufficient. If you should say that this is for the sake of intention, then therefore, just as in Baptism where “I baptize” is said and no other act is expressed, so in Confirmation it should suffice to say “I confirm.”
A further question: why is there mention of the cross in the formula rather than of the incarnation or resurrection?
Still a further question: why is the material named in this sacrament when it says “I confirm you with chrism,” and not in Baptism, as if to say “I baptize you in water?”
I respond: The form for this sacrament as stated above is necessary, as the reasons put forward prove.
To the objections: 1. To the contrary objection concerning its institution, the positions of the learned are varied. For some say that Christ instituted that form and handed it on to the Apostles, and the Apostles afterwards left it to those who followed, even though this is not written in the canon of Scripture. Christ did not use that form when he laid his hands on the children, because he did this as Lord and not as a minister.
However, it can be explained otherwise, and even better. I believe that Christ neither arranged nor instituted this sacrament. This is because it was fitting that the Apostles be confirmed and given the Spirit as a strengthener after his ascension. Hence John 7:39 says, The Holy Spirit was not yet given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified, at least not given, I should say, in its fullness or for strengthening.3 This indeed he did on the day of Pentecost. Hence they were confirmed by the Holy Spirit directly without the ministry and the sacrament. Furthermore they also confirmed others without a word as well. However, after the pillars of the Church, namely the Apostles, who had been ordained prelates and confirmed by God, not by human beings, passed on, the Holy Spirit instituted the form of this sacrament, upon which the Holy Spirit bestowed the power to sanctify. Thus in this manner the response to the first becomes clear.
2. To the objection concerning the form, namely that Christ did not institute it, and that the Apostles did not institute it and pass it on to those who came after, the reason was explained above. Still, other reasons of congruity (rationes congruentiae) can be given. This is because, for example, there was a lessening of holiness in those who administer it, or a lessening of fitness in those who receive it, so it was opportune to institute a sanctifying word.4 There is also another reason, and that shall be dealt with below.5
To the further question about the form, it must be said that, in this sacrament, grace is given to strengthen faith both as a confirmation in the heart and as an unrestrained confession in the mouth. Further, it was difficult and arduous to confess the crucified Christ, both because of the reproach, as it says in l Corinthians 1:23, We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness, and because of the danger. Adversaries were anxious to kill all such people, as it says in John 15:21: These things they will do to you for my name’s sake. Hence, it was fitting that a double act be inserted in the form, the one that refers to the open confession of the crucified one, as if he would always bear it on his forehead, and the second, for the firming up of the heart.
From this it is clear why the cross is given greater prominence. This is because the cross is the most arduous and ignominious thing to confess. However, concerning the matter of chrism and why it is what it is, this will be seen just below.6 The reason is that it is consecrated, which is not the case for the other sacraments. Others nevertheless say that this is on account of the special efficacy of this sacrament, and the special and singular grace which is conferred in this sacrament for battle.
WHETHER THE MATTER OF CONFIRMATION IS NECESSARY
The second question concerns the matter, whether it is necessary. It appears at first that this sacrament necessarily requires its matter:
a. Because, as Hugh says, “A sacrament is an element displayed to the senses, which represents by way of likeness.”7 Since representation happens through matter, therefore matter is necessary.
b. Besides, it was held above8 that the Lord did not give power to cleanse to human beings per se, but by means of an element, lest hope be placed in a human being. Therefore it is equally right that the power of confirming should not be given to a human being unless by way of an element.
To the contrary: 1. The Apostles confirmed with only the imposition of hands.9 Therefore, it appears they passed on the power that they had to their successors. Their successors are therefore able to do this with only the imposition of hands.
2. Likewise, the matter of the other sacraments was instituted by Christ, as is clear in Baptism and the Eucharist, and Christ also received these. Therefore it seems equally true that, if this sacrament would have any matter, Christ would have instituted the sacrament by receiving that matter. If you should say that it was not fitting that he be confirmed, then the objection arises that neither should he have been circumcised or baptized. However, he did these on account of the authority of the sacrament and, as we have held, as an example of humility; therefore, etc.10 Likewise, I question whether the matter of this sacrament should be consecrated. It would seem to be so, because it is chrism, which is consecrated by bishops at a set time of the year. However, on the other hand, it would seem not, since the other sacraments can be confected without the consecration of the matter. This is clear in Baptism, which precedes, and in the Eucharist, which follows. Therefore it is likewise in Confirmation.
Likewise, I question why the other sacraments have simple elements, and not mixed, and this sacrament has mixed elements. It would seem that this should not be, because it is written in Sirach 24:15, where Wisdom says of herself, My odor is like an unmixed balsam.
Again, I ask, why is balsam adopted rather than water? It would seem that water should be preferred. This is because the response for a widespread sickness should be a common and general element. However, balsam is precious and rare, while water is the most common of all elements; therefore, etc.
Again, why oil rather than wine? It would seem that wine should be preferred, because it makes a person bold and eloquent, and this is the effect of this sacrament.
I respond: As was mentioned above,11 Christ did not institute this sacrament. This is because believers were to be confirmed after his ascension. Hence the Apostles regulated neither the matter nor the form. Rather, they regulated the res of this sacrament without a form, with the immediate confirmation of the Holy Spirit, and without any element or matter. This is because in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit visible signs appeared. Thus there was no need of an element.12 Yet afterwards, in this sacrament, having being instituted by their successors, the power of word was invisibly given. Hence it was opportune that a sensible (visible) element also be instituted.
This sensible element [chrism] was thus instituted, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, by Church leaders themselves. This was because Christ had not instituted it nor given it its power, in the way that he had given power to water by contact with his purest flesh, or as he himself prepared his own body and instituted the element or matter of the Eucharist as bread and wine. Wherefore the bishops, being unable to consecrate materials by themselves, established that materials be consecrated through a blessing. Hence the matter of this sacrament must be consecrated.13
To the question asked why a mixture in this case, and not so in the others, it should be said, as was said about the form.14 This is because the mixture serves a twofold arduous act, and because that same twofold act is expressed in the form. Thus a double element is mixed to agree with that twofold act and situation. Olive oil by its clarity signifies an interior faith from a good conscience, and balsam by its odor signifies a worthy and praiseworthy confession. For this reason it is clear why these two elements are preferred to others.
To the objection concerning the commonness of the element, it should be said that this would be true if this sacrament were one of necessity, and the full rationale of sign value would be preserved.15 Concerning wine it should similarly be said that it is unfitting for the reason that it makes one bold and strong by clouding reason. So it is unbecoming because spiritual fortitude comes from an upright and pure mind and not from a beclouded reason.
WHETHER ANYONE CAN ADMINISTER CONFIRMATION AT LEAST IN NECESSITY
The third question concerns the power to administer this sacrament. It would seem that anyone can administer this sacrament, at least in necessity:
1. Because if someone baptizes, that one is baptized. Since therefore Baptism is the most efficacious among the sacraments, and what has control over the greater has control over the lesser, therefore if anyone can baptize, anyone can also confirm.
2. Again, in nature it holds that where something is, that is where it operates, and that it does not operate where it ought to be but is not. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is in some good lay person and not in an evil bishop, it would seem that the Spirit would more likely confirm through the lay person.
3. Again, a simple priest anoints with chrism upon the crown of the head.16 When he does this, then, he either accomplishes something he does or not. If it is to no effect, then he does it in vain; if he accomplishes something, then by the same token he can anoint on the forehead as well. However this latter is to confirm; therefore, etc.
4. Again, if the bishop alone is able to do this, it must be either because of Order or because of jurisdiction. If it is not on account of Order, since the bishop has no Order other than a priest has so then the priest also has the ability. If it comes from jurisdiction, then one who is elected but not consecrated can do it.
To the contrary: a. The Master says in his text that this sacrament is administered only by the high priests.17 If this is not so, then it is not to be counted among the Church’s sacraments, even to the point that it be considered invalid. Therefore it can be given by none other.
b. Again, Rabanus says, “Through the imposition of the hand of the high priest the Paraclete is bestowed upon the baptized.”18 He calls the bishop the high priest. Therefore, if any other anoints and says the words, it is not considered to be this sacrament.
c. Again, it stands to reason, because at Acts 8:17 the Glossa says that that Philip at whose preaching the Samaritans believed, was not able to impose hands because he was not an Apostle; therefore this was granted only to the Apostles.19
I respond: It must be said that this sacrament cannot be and ought not to be administered by any other, and if others should presume to do it, they accomplish nothing. The reason for this is because the authority of the Church was distributed to its members according to the first order of the Church. Hence, just as only the Apostles had this authority, so now only their successors have it.
Then the question becomes, Why is this sacrament and the sacrament of Order administered only by bishops, and why was it confided only to bishops? It should be said that the reason for this is that they and their successors are the principal prelates in the Church. The prelate however has a twofold duty, namely to place inferiors in their proper stations, fixing them in their rank, and to establish himself as a protective wall20 or defender of his flock. Hence only they establish and strengthen the orders.
Others explain differently that in these two sacraments the fullness of grace is given, and therefore they should be administered by those who have the fullness of authority, and not by others. It is for this same reason that the consecration of abbots and churches, which are lofty deeds, are granted only to bishops—that is, for the reason that they have lofty authority.
Another reason can be given, that while bishops have the care of all, theirs is the concern for subjects and especially of clerics. While others have been commissioned guardianship, still it pleased the Holy Spirit that all subjects receive some sacrament immediately from their prelate. In like fashion it also pleased him that clerics receive the same. That is the twofold sacrament in which a twofold seal gets impressed. Therefore the Apostle in Romans 1:11 says, I long to see you that I may share with you some spiritual grace to confirm you. Many reasons from fittingness could be given, because in such matters fittingness is the greater reason for this position rather than the reason of necessity,21 because it is institution that principally produces necessity.
To the objections: 1. To the objection concerning Baptism, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is because Baptism is a sacrament of necessity, so its power is granted to all. That is not the case with Confirmation.
2. To the objection that the Holy Spirit works where it is, it must be said that the grace of the Holy Spirit through which it is said to be at work in us, is twofold. The first is the gratia gratum faciens, and this manner of grace accomplishes the work of salvation for the one in whom it resides. The second is the gratia gratis data, and by means of this grace, the work of salvation is brought about in another. This latter remains in the human being, even if the gratia gratum faciens should depart. This is because of divine dispensation, so that the salvation of the subject should not be obstructed through the malice of a prelate.22
3. To the objection concerning the priest, that he anoints on the crown of the head, it must be said that this objection has no merit. Nevertheless, it is not made in vain, because it is instructive and establishes a relationship, namely with Baptism. Besides, if it accomplishes something, it is still not the sacrament of Confirmation.
4. To the last objection, which concerns from where the bishop has this ability, it must be said that it is neither from jurisdiction nor from his priestly Order, but from his episcopal authority and dignity, which means the highest rank of Order. This eminence is conferred upon the bishop when he is consecrated. Thus, if he should renounce his jurisdiction he can still confirm. Therefore, while he does not have this ability from his priestly Order or from his temporal jurisdiction, he still has it from something which outranks them both. Others, however, say that he has it by reason of its institution.
_______________
1 Here, Bonaventure draws from a longer text by Hugh. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 11, c. 2 (PL 176, 343C; Corpus Victorinum, 243): Ac deinde quam continent in se sanctificationem conferunt ut sint ex sanctificatione sanctificantia atque hec ex sua sibique celitus indita sanctificatione conferant quod illa per hec ex sola horum sanctificatione conferre consueuerant.
2 After Vatican II, the form was simplified: “N., be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.” Cf. The Roman Pontifical, Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI. (Vatican City: International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1978), 77.
3 Bonaventure here makes a distinction between being filled with the Holy Spirit and the act of receiving the Holy Spirit in his fullness for strengthening.
4 Therefore, one reason is that the form was added for those who are weak. This use of the word opportunus does not seem consistent with the necessity of the form which he articulated in his respondeo. Perhaps he is wrestling with the fact that Christ did not institute this sacrament.
5 Cf. question 2, below.
6 Cf. question 2, below.
7 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 9, c. 2 (PL 176, 317D; Corpus Victorinum, 209-10): Si quis autem plenius et perfectius quid sit sacramentum diffinire voluerit, potest dicere quod sacramentum est corporeale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum ex similitudine representans et exstinctione significans, et ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam.
8 This reference is to d. 5, a. 3, q. 1, res, which is not translated here. See Bonaventure, Opera Omnia, (Quaracchi: Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902), IV, 128-9.
9 Acts 8:17.
10 Cf. d. 3, p. 2, a. 3, p. 1, ad 3.
11 Cf. d. 7, a. 1, q. 1.
12 This refers to Pentecost in Acts 2.
13 The chrism needs to be consecrated by a consecrated bishop because it was not made holy through contact with Christ himself, as the water, bread, and wine were in Baptism and Eucharist. Christ did not designate chrism as the visible sign for this sacrament. Thus, it was designated not by Christ, but rather by the Church.
14 Cf. d. 7, a. 1, q. 1.
15 Therefore, Confirmation is not a necessary sacrament.
16 This anointing undoubtedly refers to the anointing with oil, which occurs in Baptism not in Confirmation. Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 7, c. 2-3, 277-78. Here, Peter quotes Gregory to back up his position.
17 Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 7, c. 2, 277. Here, Peter quotes Pope Eusebius’ (died 309) letter to bishops in Tuscany and Campania. This letter is now known to be spurious, but neither Peter nor Bonaventure would have known this.
18 Rabanus Maurus, De clericorum institutione, I, c. 30 (PL 107, 314A): Novissime autem a summo sacerdote per impositionem manus Paracletus traditur illi Spiritus sanctus, ut roboretur per Spiritum sanctum ad praedicandum aliis idem donum quod ipse in baptismate consecutus est, per gratiam vitae donatus aeternae.
19 Bonaventure here refers to the story of Philip’s preaching to and conversion of Samaria. When the Samaritans were converted, Philip baptized them, but the Apostles themselves had to come lay hands on them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Cf. Acts 8:14-17. Bonaventure, here, also draws from the following text of the Glossa. Cf. Glossa Ordinaria at Acts 8:17, Biblia Glossa, vol. 4, 472: Philippus qui Samariae evangelizabat unus de 7 fuit. Si enim apostolus certe manus imponere posset ut Spiritum acciperent.
20 The Latin word here is murus, which is a defensive wall protecting a city against enemies.
21 Latin: …quia in talibus magis locum habet congruitas quam necessitas, quia institution necessitatem facit praecipue.
22 In this question, Bonaventure argues that even if a bishop should lose the grace of perseverance and thus become wicked, he still has the ability, through divine dispensation by virtue of gratia gratis data, to be the instrument of gratia gratis faciens for another.