Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation
Rev. Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR
Fr. Nicholas answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law.
I see that there will be Confirmations soon in the District. I have only been confirmed in the Novus Ordo, so should I get confirmed again in the Traditional rite?
Though we live in times of confusion and crisis in the Church, we may not simply follow our own inclinations in this regard. Many concerned Catholics have been tempted to think that there can be no harm (‘just to be sure’) in the repetition of sacraments that can only be given once. Yet though there can undoubtedly be spiritual harm in having received a sacrament invalidly, there can also be spiritual harm in seeking to have it conferred again conditionally if one does not have a good enough reason. Here is what the Church legislates:
‘The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, which imprint a character, cannot be repeated. But if a prudent doubt exists about whether really and validly these [Sacraments] were conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition.1
A kind of automatic ‘better-safe-than-sorry’ approach to conditional repetition of these sacraments is thus alien to the mind of the Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has the following to say, speaking in this case about Baptism:
‘Nor let anyone suppose that it is repeated by the Church when she baptizes anyone whose previous Baptism was doubtful, making use of this formula, If thou art baptized, I baptize thee not again but if thou art not yet baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ In such cases Baptism is not to be considered as impiously repeated, but as holily, yet conditionally, administered.
‘In this connection, however, there are some matters, in which, to the very great injury of the sacrament, abuses are of almost daily occurrence, and which, therefore, demand the diligent attention of pastors. For there are not wanting those who think that no sin is committed if they indiscriminately administer conditional Baptism. Hence if an infant be brought to them, they think that no inquiry need be made as to whether it was previously baptized, but proceed immediately to baptize the child. Nay more, although they be well aware that the sacrament was administered at home, they do not hesitate to repeat its administration in the Church conditionally, making use of the solemn ceremonies of the Church.
‘This certainly they cannot do without sacrilege and without incurring [formerly] what theologians call an irregularity. According to the authority of Pope Alexander the conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.’2
Here we see that far from being a safe option with no possible evil consequences, the indiscriminate conditional repetition of the sacraments can be sacrilegious, and, as Fr. Henry Davis, SJ explains, ‘grievously sinful for the minister to repeat those Sacraments that may not be repeated without reasonable cause.’ Nonetheless, he continues:
‘Whenever a prudent doubt based on probable reasons persists regarding the validity of a sacrament bestowed, that sacrament may be repeated, and it is to be observed that when the good of others is at stake or the mental anxiety of the recipient is concerned, repetition may the more readily be conceded. The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done where its validity is doubted — or rather, so long as its validity is not morally certain — in cases when the sacrament is necessary, whether absolutely and of its nature, as Baptism, or relatively and in respect of the good of others, as Ordination, absolution, Extreme Unction. Consequently, in doubt as to validity, Baptism, Ordination, absolution of the dying, Extreme Unction of the unconscious, and consecration of doubtfully consecrated hosts, must be repeated. Though repetition may not be obligatory in certain cases, necessary Sacraments may be repeated where the recipient is greatly distressed at a supervening doubt.
‘In the case of the sacraments that are not necessary, as Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction of one who has been absolved, each case must be considered on its own merits, and the minister must be guided by the reasonableness of the doubt, the good of the recipient and his own opportunities. When the invalidity of a sacrament is certain, the sacrament must be repeated absolutely; when the invalidity is doubtful, it must be repeated conditionally.’3
Considering the Sacrament of Confirmation specifically, we must remember that, on the one hand, it is one of the sacraments which imprint a character upon the soul, and which thus cannot be repeated absolutely without sacrilege. On the other hand, it is not one of those which are strictly necessary for salvation. Thus to be justified in receiving it again conditionally, we shall need to have a prudent doubt based on probable reasons that arise from the circumstances of what happened when we were first confirmed, and without mental anxiety playing the additional justifying role it might do in the case of the necessary sacraments.4
So why would one have reason to doubt the validity of one’s Confirmation? All doubts as to the validity of any sacrament can be reduced to four headings, which correspond in turn to the four elements that go into each one’s valid confection: matter, form, minister and intention.
Accordingly if someone has doubts as to the validity of their Confirmation in the new (or any other) rite, it would have to be because they have a positive doubt based on indications that one or more of these elements is lacking, and not merely a negative — ‘what if?’ — doubt.
Matter and Form
Though the Church has never defined the specific matter of the sacrament of Confirmation, i.e whether either the imposition of hands, or the anointing, or the combination of both, constitute the matter, we can certainly say that the omission of one or the other would make validity doubtful. In practice we work on the assumption that, as the Catechism of St. Pius X teaches, ‘the matter of this sacrament, besides the imposition of hands by the bishop, is the anointing of the forehead of the baptised with sacred chrism; and for this reason it is also called the sacrament of Chrism, that is Anointing. Sacred Chrism is oil of olive mingled with balsam, and consecrated by the bishop on Holy Thursday.’5
In the Traditional Roman Rite, the form is, I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
‘In the [modern] Latin rite, the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In the [Catholic] Eastern Churches, after a prayer of epiclesis the more significant parts of the body are anointed with myron: forehead, eyes, nose, ears, lips, breast, back, hands, and feet. Each anointing is accompanied by the formula: The seal of the gift that is the Holy Spirit.’6
Minister and Intention
‘The ordinary minister of confirmation is only a Bishop. The extraordinary minister is a priest to whom the faculty has been granted, either by common law or special indult of the Apostolic See.’7
The intention of the minister must be that required for all the sacraments:
‘The Tridentine Council solemnly declares: “If anyone saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.” To understand the full significance of this declaration it should be noted that the Council does not say, “what the Church intends” but merely, “what the Church does.” Consequently, all that is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments is the direct intention, i.e. the purpose of performing the rite as is usual among Catholics.’8
In addition, the recipient must be baptised, and not have formed a positive counter-intention not to receive the sacrament. The reception of the sacrament by one thus explicitly unwilling would be invalid even if the Confirmation of an unwitting baptized infant would be valid.
The New Rite of Confirmation
These clarifications being made, we can proceed to examine each ground for potential invalidity in the new rite of Confirmation promulgated by Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Constitution Divinae consortium naturae of 1971.9
The matter remains unchanged: the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand. (We shall return to the question of the constitution of the chrism itself presently.)
The form is changed, but only to align with that which has always been a manifestly valid form used by Eastern Catholics.
One could only doubt the validity of the minister if one had positive grounds to consider his ordination invalid. Since we have no reason to question the validity of the new rite of ordination of priests, and since various studies have looked at the new rite of consecration of bishops and answered any objections against its validity satisfactorily, we can safely say that the new rites of ordination are valid per se (though we do not exclude cases of potential invalidity per accidens as, for example, when individual bishops have mutilated or essentially changed the rites of Holy Orders, or when a particular priest’s ordination has been invalid due to his own baptism not having been valid). These latter cases can only be allowed to inform our doubts positively, i.e. when we have proof that this is what has happened. Mere negative doubt that speculates that something might have happened is not good enough, especially in the case of Confirmation, as we have noted.10
And finally, we have no reason to doubt whether the bishops and priests conferring Confirmation have the intention to do what the Church does. It is not a question of their general orthodoxy or lack of it; to invalidate the sacrament they would have to form a positive counter-intention to the one that we can assume is there inasmuch as they follow the rites prescribed by the Church. Again, absent positive proof of this we cannot act on mere speculation.
Thus there is no reason to believe that Confirmation in the new rite is per se invalid. We may well deplore the irreverence of the ceremony or the lack of solid instruction of the candidates, but it is only having a positive ground to suspect actual invalidity that would justify us in repeating Confirmation conditionally.
The Chrism Question
There remains one more possible ground for the invalidity of Confirmation in the new rite: the constitution of the chrism used in the anointing. For the whole of the history of the Church, it was unknown — and strictly forbidden — for chrism to be made from anything other than olive oil. An article on the subject in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique states:
‘The Church has always and exclusively used olive oil in the confection of the sacred chrism as the most ancient documents bear witness. … The Venerable Bede explains with precision that no other kind of oil, whether of nuts or of almonds, can be employed in the making of chrism, for only olive oil is truly oil; it is also the oil commonly used, and the one which best expresses the properties of the Holy Ghost. … [At the time of the Photian Schism the Greeks] accused the Latins of using river water to confect the sacred chrism. In the name of all the bishops of Gaul, Bertrand of Corbie strongly refuted the calumny, and attested that the Latins used the juice of the olive — olivae liquore — to this effect, as did the Greeks themselves and all the churches of Christ. … Moreover, Pope Gregory VII, having learned that the Armenians allowed themselves to replace oil with butter, immediately raised the matter with them in order to condemn this practice. … In the West, no theologian ever contested that olive oil was indispensable to the validity of chrism, and no practice to the contrary motivated official declarations of the Church on this subject. … This necessity may be deduced from the words of Innocent III, and of the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians which determines how chrism is made: “Chrism is confected from oil and balsam.’”11
In 1972, however, Pope Paul VI made the following concession concerning the Oil of the Sick used in Extreme Unction:
‘Since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circumstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture.12
This permission to use other vegetable oil was later extended to chrism, and codified under Pope John Paul II:
‘In administering the sacraments in which holy oils must be used, the minister must use oils pressed from olives or other plants ...’13
The argument can thus be made that if the anointing with chrism pertains to the matter of the sacrament of Confirmation, and if the use of oil other than olive oil to make chrism is invalid, then there exists a positive doubt as to the validity of Confirmation conferred with chrism made of vegetable oil.
It will be argued that the Council of Trent dogmatised in its 21st session that ‘in the dispensation of the sacraments, salva illorum substantia, the Church may, according to circumstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers.’14
This very passage is the argument on which the positive doubt is based, however. The key phrase is this: salva illorum substantia — ‘their substance being untouched’. This means that the Church has no power over the substance (the matter and the form) of the sacraments that Our Lord has instituted. When He has done so in a specific manner, we have to adhere exactly to what He has prescribed (e.g. the use of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist, rather than other matter). When He has instituted some aspect of the sacraments only generally (e.g. the form of Confirmation), then the Church has some leeway to modify things. Now if Our Lord made the anointing with olive oil part of the matter of Confirmation, then the Church — even the Pope — has no power to change this.
This means, in turn, that one would have solid enough grounds to doubt the validity of Confirmation conferred with chrism not made of olive oil. It might be valid, or it might not, and thus it could be conferred again conditionally.
Nonetheless one would only be entitled to seek this conditional reconfirmation if one had good grounds to believe that such oil had been used. Again, a merely negative doubt that speculates or fears that something might be the case does not suffice. Nor is one obliged to attempt to discover what oil was used at one’s Confirmation. The use of chrism not made of olive oil is doubtless a rarity in Britain at least, and given that Confirmation is not strictly necessary for salvation, one can safely follow a course of action which assumes validity rather than risks possible sacrilege absent any positive indication to the contrary. Similarly one should not cause others futile anxiety by causing them to doubt whether their Confirmation is valid when one has no concrete reason to call into question the circumstances of their reception of the sacrament.
The purpose of this article is not to analyse the failings of the liturgical revolution, but simply to consider whether or not one is justified in seeking the conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the old rite. In answer to the question posed, we can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace, and accept that there are many things that God does not expect you to know with dogmatic certainty in this life. To follow the safer path is to follow the one indicated by objective principles laid down by the Church long ago. †
- 1
1. Canon 732 of the 1917 Code in Dr E. N. Peters (ed.), The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: in English translation with extensive scholarly apparatus (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2001). This is similar to Canon 845 of the new Code.
- 2
Fr. J. A. McHugh, OP & Fr C. J. Callan, OP (transl.), The Catechism of The Council of Trent (Wagner, New York, 1934 ), p 190.
- 3
Fr. H. Davis, SJ, Moral and Pastoral Theology Sheed & Ward, London, 1959), 8th ed., Vol. III, p.25. The question arises here as to what it means to say that a sacrament is not necessary. ‘What sacraments have a necessity of means? (a) Those sacraments have a necessity of means without which sanctifying grace and salvation cannot be had. Hence the necessity for individuals of Baptism (without which there is no regeneration), of Penance (without which there is no reconciliation), of the Eucharist’s effect (without which there is no incorporation with Christ), and for the Church the necessity of Orders (without which there are no ministers and dispensers of grace. (b) Those Sacraments have no necessity of means without which sanctifying grace and salvation can be had; but they have a necessity of convenience, inasmuch as they perfect grace already had and make salvation more easy. In this sense, then, Confirmation and Extreme Unction may be called necessary for the individual, since the former perfects the grace of Baptism and the latter the grace of Penance; and Matrimony may be called necessary for the Church, since it perfects with a sacramental grace the propagation of the children of the Church.” In: Fr J.A. McHugh, OP & Fr C. J. Callan, OP, Moral Theology (Wagner, New York, 1958), rev. ed., no. 2661.
- 4
Even in the case of those other sacraments, it is not mental anxiety which would be the sole, or even primary reason justifying conditional repetition. There too positive and probable grounds would be required. To allow the allaying of groundless anxiety to be the primary motive would in any case not even help therapeutically in the medium to long term, as one would be merely feeding that pathology.
- 5
The Catechism of Saint Pius X, Gladysdale, Vic., 1993 (Instauratio Press), p. 73.
- 6
- 7
Canon 782 of the 1917 Code in Dr E.N. Peters, op cit. (Canons 882–83 in the 1983 Code are similar).
- 8
Fr. J. Pohle (transl. Fr A. Preuss), The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (B. Herder, St Louis, MO, 1915), Vol. I, p. 178.
- 9
- 10
On the validity of the new rite of Episcopal Consecration per se see the study of Fr Pierre-Marie, OP, ‘Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid’ in The Angelus, December 2005, pp. 2–16 and January 2006, pp. 2–22.
- 11
A. Vacant & E. Mangenot (eds) Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Letouzey, Paris, 1910), Vol. II, cols. 2401–2.
- 12
- 13
Canon 847, §1 of the 1983 Code (emphasis added)
- 14
Fr. H. J. Schroeder, OP (transl.), Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Herder, St Louis, MO, 1941), p. 133.
View all articles from Ite Missa Est.