By DON FIER
Part 2
In the introductory paragraph of its section on the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Roman Catechism [RC], promulgated in 1566 by Pope St. Pius V soon after the Council of Trent, are the following words:
“If there was ever a time when the Sacrament of Confirmation needed to be explained carefully, that time is now. All too many members of the Church neglect it altogether; and those who have received it or who plan to receive it, see it as something minor in their lives. There is need, then, for instruction on the nature, power, and dignity of this sacrament. Far from being neglected or received in a mere perfunctory way, Confirmation must be restored to the reverence and devotion it deserves” (RC, II, 3, 1).
These exacting words, originally written four-and-a-half centuries ago, are just as appropriate today as they were then.
In an excellent little volume entitled Living the Sacraments: Grace Into Action, Bert Ghezzi notes an all-too-common consequence of the contemporary mentality:
“Many Catholic parents mistakenly regard the sacrament of Confirmation as graduation. With sighs of relief, they feel that the sacrament completes the formal religious education of their son or daughter. No more nagging him about religion homework; no more dragging her to class at church on Wednesday evenings” (p. 52).
If such an attitude prevails in a Catholic household, Confirmation represents a dead end instead of what it can and should be: a new beginning and a fresh start burgeoned with many graces, virtues, and gifts that have been received as an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
As we saw last week, a clearer understanding of the vital importance of Confirmation in the spiritual life of a Christian can be gained through an analogy to natural life. Just as one can distinguish between birth and maturity in the natural order, so too in the supernatural order: Spiritual rebirth takes place with Baptism and spiritual growth and strengthening occurs with fruitful reception of Confirmation.
In fact, just a rudimentary examination of the etymology of the word “confirmation” sheds further light on this doctrine of our faith.
In his Modern Catholic Dictionary (MCD), Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, stipulates that the term confirmation comes from the Latin con- (thoroughly), and firmare (to make firm); confirmatio thus indicates fortification or strengthening.
Elsewhere, Fr. Hardon defines Confirmation as “the sacrament of spiritual strengthening” (in Latin, roboratio spiritualis). “Those already baptized,” he explains, “are strengthened by the Holy Spirit in order that they may steadfastly live up to their profession [of faith]” (MCD, p. 122). Although Confirmation, unlike Baptism, is not strictly necessary for salvation, “it is eminently important in contributing to Christian perfection and there is a grave obligation to receive it in due time” (ibid.).
It was the fourth-century bishop and doctor of the Church, St. Ambrose of Milan, who is credited with coining the word to describe the sacrament: “You have received the spiritual sign, the sign of wisdom: God the Father has sealed you, Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has given you the gift of the Spirit in your heart” (De Mysteriis, 7, 42; as cited in The Didache Series: The Sacraments, p. 55).
In the Western Church, as specified by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), “the term Confirmation suggests that this sacrament both confirms baptism and strengthens baptismal grace” (n. 1289). In the Eastern Church, the sacrament is referred to as Chrismation, a term which finds its origin in the sacramental sign of the perfumed oil of chrism (myron) that is used in the anointing of the sacrament’s recipient.
The fact that Christ Himself instituted each of the seven sacraments during His visible stay on Earth is an infallibly taught dogma of our faith. However, direct evidence from Sacred Scripture as to the precise time He instituted Confirmation (unlike such sacraments as Baptism, Penance, and the Holy Eucharist) is not clear.
As we saw last week, there are many Old Testament figures that point to Confirmation and several prophecies which foretell the outpouring of the Spirit of God over all mankind as a characteristic of the messianic age. Likewise, we saw manifested on Pentecost Sunday a marvelous display of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles.
However, Pentecost occurred ten days after Jesus had already ascended into Heaven to the right hand of His Father. So how can one reconcile that Confirmation was instituted while Christ was still bodily present on Earth? St. Thomas Aquinas posits in his Summa Theologiae (STh) that Christ instituted the sacrament when He promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to His apostles:
“Christ instituted this sacrament not by bestowing, but by promising it, according to John 16:7: ‘If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him to you.’ And this was because in this sacrament the fullness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, which was not to be given before Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension; according to John 7:39: ‘As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified’” (STh III, Q. 72, art. 1, ad 1).
Jesus repeated this promise three times during His Last Supper Discourse (see John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). He likewise reiterated this same promise to His apostles a fourth time just prior to His glorious Ascension into Heaven:
“To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. . . . You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth’” (Acts 1:3-5, 8).
Biblical Evidence
What about biblical evidence that Confirmation, as distinct from Baptism, was administered during apostolic times? In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that the people of Samaria, through the preaching of the deacon Philip, believed the “good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ [and] were baptized” (Acts 8:12).
Just two verses later, we read that “when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John . . . [who] laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:14, 17).
As will be discussed later in this series, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is a bishop (as successor to the apostles). It is thus implied that Philip could baptize, but as a deacon was unable to confirm and confer the fuller gift of the Holy Spirit; an apostle was required.
Another example appears later in this same book of the Bible that records the early life of the Church. When St. Paul journeyed to Ephesus he inquired of some disciples, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 13:2).
They responded by indicating they had received John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance, but had not heard of the Holy Spirit. The disciples were then “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied” (Acts 13:5-6).
Notice that it was only after St. Paul baptized the disciples that he laid his hands upon them. “The imposition of hands,” teaches the Catechism, “is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin [original sign] of the sacrament of Confirmation” (CCC, n. 1288).
In recounting the history of the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Catechism goes on to explain that “in the first centuries Confirmation generally comprised one single celebration with Baptism, forming with it a ‘double sacrament,’ according to the expression of St. Cyprian” (CCC, n. 1290). It was possible early in the Church’s life, as explained by Fr. Hardon, for bishops to be “able to take a personal interest in all candidates for baptism” (The Catholic Catechism, p. 515).
As the Church grew, however, such factors such as “the multiplication of infant baptisms all through the year, the increase of rural parishes, and the growth of dioceses often prevented the bishop from being present at all baptismal celebrations” (CCC, n. 1290).
The Western Church, in its desire to “clearly express the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of his Church” (CCC, n. 1292), adapted the practice of conferral of Baptism by parish priests; bishops retained the function as regular minister of the rite of Confirmation at a later date.
The Eastern Church, in its desire to give “greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation” (CCC, n. 1292), retained the primitive custom of administering Confirmation in immediate relation to Baptism. This, of course, required that parish priests who baptized also conferred Confirmation. The bishop’s part is maintained in that the oil of chrism that is used for the anointing of Confirmation must be consecrated by him.
+ + +
(Don Fier serves on the board of directors for The Catholic Servant, a Minneapolis-based monthly publication. He and his wife are the parents of seven children. Fier is a 2009 graduate of Ave Maria University’s Institute for Pastoral Theology. He is doing research for writing a definitive biography of Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress