Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

After St. Thomas determined concerning the sacrament of baptism, he determines concerning the sacrament of confirmation ¹. And he sets down three conclusions.

I. The first is: They who receive the sacrament of confirmation fittingly receive on the forehead the sign of the cross, by which Christ fought and conquered. That they fittingly receive such a sign is proved, because this sacrament, by which spiritual strength for confessing without fear the faith of Christ is conferred on the regenerated person, in a certain way constitutes him a champion for the faith of Christ; but those who fight under some prince bear his insignia. — But that they fittingly receive it on the forehead is proved, because this is done as a sign that they do not blush publicly to confess the faith of Christ.

Note, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Tertia, q. LXXII, a. 9; and IV Sent., d. VII, q. III, a. 3 ², that a man can be hindered from the free confession of the name of Christ both by fear and by shame. Of each of these the sign appears especially in the forehead; both because of the nearness of the imagination, from which passions of this kind proceed, and because the spirits ascend directly from the heart to the forehead; whence those who are ashamed blush, while those who fear grow pale. And therefore, since the sacrament of confirmation is given for the free confession of the name of Christ, the confirmed are fittingly anointed on the forehead. And this is the reason that is touched on here.

II. The second conclusion is: This marking is reasonably made from the confection of oil and balm which is called chrism. It is proved. Because by the oil the power of the Holy Spirit is signified, by which Christ is named the Anointed: so that Christians are thus called from Christ, as it were fighting under him. But in the balm, on account of its odor, good repute is shown, which those who converse among worldly people must have, in order to confess publicly the faith of Christ.

Note, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Tertia Parte, q. suprad., a. 2 ³; and IV Sent., suprad. d., q. 1, a. 2 ⁴, that although Christ did not use chrism in confirmation, nevertheless, according to Dionysius, in IV cap. Eccles. Hier. ⁵, the Apostles sometimes used chrism in the exhibition of this sacrament, when there was not present a visible sign of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon those upon whom the imposition of hands had been made by them. But when some sensible sign of such a descent of the Holy Spirit was miraculously present, for example fire or something of the kind, they did not use chrism: because that visible apparition supplied the place of the visible element.

III. The third conclusion is: This sacrament is fittingly conferred by bishops alone. It is proved. Because they are in a certain way the leaders of the Christian army: but in the secular militia it belongs to the leader of the army to enroll, by choosing them, certain men into the militia. — This is confirmed by this sign: because hands are imposed on them, to signify the derivation of power from Christ.

Note, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Tertia, q. LXXII, a. 11; and IV Sent., d. VII, q. III, a. 1 ⁶, that this, that the sacrament of confirmation is said to be conferred by bishops alone — which is also set forth in Can. ⁷ Manus, de Consecr., dist. v; and in Cap. Quanto, de Consecr. ⁸ — is to be understood ex officio: for by the imposition of the hand of the Apostles, whose place the bishops hold, the fullness of the Holy Spirit was given. But by a commission of the Pope even a simple priest can confer this sacrament: because the Pope has the fullness of ministerial power over the mystical body of the Lord. Nor in such a commission is the Pope properly said to change the minister of this sacrament instituted by Christ: because although he commits to someone that he confirm by the authority of the Pope himself, he commits to no simple priest that he do this by his own authority and office.

IV. But then a doubt occurs. For since the fitness of the minister is required for the integrity of the sacrament, as is the mind of St. Thomas in Quarto, d. VII, q. III, a. 1, qu. 1, ad 1, it is asked who is the necessary minister in the sacrament of confirmation? If a bishop: therefore the Pope will not be able to commit the conferral of confirmation to anyone other than a bishop: because the Pope cannot take away that which pertains to the integrity of the sacrament. If a simple priest: therefore here it is badly said that it is conferred by bishops alone.

He answers that we can speak of the necessary minister in two ways: namely, either of him to whom alone it can belong absolutely to minister the sacrament; or of him to whom alone it belongs ordinarily and ex officio.

If we speak in the first way, then the priest, absolutely speaking, is the necessary minister of confirmation, as St. Thomas declares in the question and article cited above: for it can be conferred by a priest alone, whether it is conferred ex officio or by a commission of a superior. Moreover, the reason in IV Sent., ⁹ is that every sacramental operation upon the mystical body of Christ, through which grace is given, depends on the sacramental operation upon the true body of the Lord, since sacramental grace descends into the mystical body from the head. And therefore, since one inferior to a priest does not have the power to consecrate the true body of the Lord, the sacramental operation cannot be committed to him. And thus it is clear that the argument does not proceed: because we say that neither a simple priest, nor a priest-bishop, is the necessary minister of this sacrament, but a priest absolutely and indistinctly.

But if we speak in the second way, then the bishop alone is the necessary minister. Whence, when it is inferred: Therefore the Pope will not be able to commit the conferral to anyone other than a bishop, the consequence is denied. — But when it is proved that the Pope cannot take away that which pertains to the integrity of the sacrament: — it is said that this is indeed true, speaking of those things that pertain to the integrity of the sacrament by the institution of Christ. But then it is denied that the bishop is of the integrity of this sacrament: for although he is a necessary minister, to whom it belongs ex officio to confer this sacrament, he is nevertheless not absolutely necessary, as has appeared; since it can also belong to another by commission. And thus he does not pertain to the absolute integrity of the sacrament, but only to the integrity of the sacrament ordinarily conferred. Whence also Gregory sometimes permitted that priests confirm: as appears in Can. ¹⁰ Pervenit, dist. XCV. The gloss also holds this in Can. Manus, de Consecr., dist. V.

V. But whether the Pope can decree something concerning the sacraments as necessary to a sacrament, so that without it a true sacrament is not conferred: — it seems, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, that it must be said that he cannot, speaking of that which is only a sacrament. For in Tertia, q. LXIV, a. 2, after he determined that all sacraments were instituted by God alone, in his reply to the first objection he says that those things which are done in the sacraments, instituted by men, are not of the necessity of the sacrament, but pertain to a certain solemnity. Nor is it valid to gloss, as Capreolus glosses, in Quarto, d. VII ¹¹, that he understands this of things instituted by men inferior to the Pope, but not of things instituted by the Pope: because he subjoins in that reply that those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament were instituted by Christ himself, who is God and man, and that they were handed to the Church from the familiar tradition of the Apostles: from which words he seems to exclude all men from the institution of those things which are of the necessity of the sacraments.

Nor does it stand in the way that he himself holds, in Quarto, d. XL ¹², that the degrees of consanguinity impeding marriage can be fixed by the Church up to the fourth degree, so that it is of the necessity of the sacrament that the contracting parties not be related to one another in any of those degrees: — because, as he himself says in the same place, q. I, a. 4, ad 2, matrimony is not only a sacrament, but is also in the office of nature. Just as, moreover, human contracts and offices are determined by human laws, so spiritual contracts and offices are determined by the law of the Church. From which words it is clear that the Pope does not determine the degrees of consanguinity impeding marriage insofar as matrimony is a sacrament, but insofar as it is a certain contract, and is in the office of nature.

2. From the foregoing it is clear that the arguments of Durandus, in Capreolus, at the place cited above ¹³, proceeding from this, that the Pope cannot change the minister of a sacrament, do not proceed against us. Because we do not say that, when the Pope commits to a simple priest the conferral of the sacrament of confirmation, he changes the minister necessary simply and absolutely for this sacrament, since such a minister is indistinctly a priest, and here no change is made from a priest into a non-priest: but that the conferral of this sacrament, which is fitting to one, namely the bishop, ordinarily and ex officio, he imposes on another extraordinarily, to whom it does not belong ex officio, but who has nevertheless that which is of the necessity of the sacrament simply.

Note that this sacrament is not necessary simpliciter, but is necessary for well-being. Nevertheless, contempt would be dangerous, as St. Thomas says in Quarto¹⁴.