Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: When Youngsters Request Confirmation
ROME, SEPT. 12, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Our Aug. 29 piece on confirmation brought to the fore some questions regarding the validity of this rite when some aspect of the ritual was not followed.
A reader from England wrote: "For the third year running the bishop neglected to physically lay hands on the candidates during a school confirmation. He moved from the introduction 'My dear friends: in baptism ...' through a brief silence (without extending hands) to 'All-powerful God....' I had always understood that in Christian tradition the laying on of hands was a means of conferring of authority and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What should we feel about these confirmations?"
Another correspondent, from Australia, presented the following case:
"I am wondering about the validity of the sacrament of confirmation in a ceremony I witnessed recently. Three adults were baptized and confirmed. Matters went quite normally, except that to each confirmand the priest celebrant said, at the anointing: 'N., receive the Holy Spirit.' (Because there were three, I am quite sure I did not mishear. These were the exact words.) Afterward I found myself wondering about the validity of these confirmations. On the one hand, all the surrounding rites and prayers made it clear that we were celebrating the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. And of course, the words have changed dramatically over the years. But, on the other hand, these words seemed excessively 'non-specific' -- one receives the Holy Spirit in every sacrament, after all. … If the confirmations were invalid, or doubtfully valid, as a bystander, am I obliged in charity to do something about it?"
The two question address different aspects of the rite of confirmation.
I have no idea why the bishop would omit the laying on of hands prescribed in this part of the rite. This laying of hands is not done physically but by the bishop, and any priests who might minister the sacrament with him, extending their hands over the candidates.
All the same, while this laying on of hands is prescribed, it is not considered as being necessary for the validity of the sacrament.
The anointing with chrism is also considered as a laying on of hands and this gesture of anointing is the sacrament's essential matter.
For this reason, in the Roman rite, the anointing must always be done by hand and it is not permitted to use an instrument to do so.
Our correspondent could, perhaps, write a polite note to the bishop, simply mentioning that he had noticed this oversight in the rites of confirmation and that it would be good to recover this meaningful gesture.
The second situation is far more delicate. The sacramental formula is "N., be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit."
While it could be argued that this means essentially the same as "N., receive the Holy Spirit" this latter formula is not the sacramental form as currently used in the universal Church.
It is also highly debatable that the formula is truly equivalent, being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not exactly the same as receiving the Holy Spirit which, as our reader points out, happens in baptism and in other circumstances.
Sacramental theology, following St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that a change of wording that does not compromise meaning would be valid, albeit illicit.
The same theological tradition, however, states that under no circumstances may one ever put the validity of the sacraments at risk by using matter or forms that are merely probable.
In this case, the change is such that the confirmation is of doubtful validity and should be conditionally repeated.
Sacramental ministers have a very grave obligation before God and the faithful to be especially careful and precise with the essential rites of a sacrament. Ignorance is no excuse in this case as it is a minister's duty to know how to correctly administer a sacrament.
What can one do as an informed "bystander"? If possible, the problem should be solved immediately and discreetly by telling the priest he is not using a valid formula.
If this is not possible, and especially if the priest refuses to correct the error, the "bystander" should certainly inform the bishop so that he may provide the appropriate remedies.
Our Aug. 29 piece on confirmation brought to the fore some questions regarding the validity of this rite when some aspect of the ritual was not followed.
A reader from England wrote: "For the third year running the bishop neglected to physically lay hands on the candidates during a school confirmation. He moved from the introduction 'My dear friends: in baptism ...' through a brief silence (without extending hands) to 'All-powerful God....' I had always understood that in Christian tradition the laying on of hands was a means of conferring of authority and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What should we feel about these confirmations?"
Another correspondent, from Australia, presented the following case:
"I am wondering about the validity of the sacrament of confirmation in a ceremony I witnessed recently. Three adults were baptized and confirmed. Matters went quite normally, except that to each confirmand the priest celebrant said, at the anointing: 'N., receive the Holy Spirit.' (Because there were three, I am quite sure I did not mishear. These were the exact words.) Afterward I found myself wondering about the validity of these confirmations. On the one hand, all the surrounding rites and prayers made it clear that we were celebrating the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. And of course, the words have changed dramatically over the years. But, on the other hand, these words seemed excessively 'non-specific' -- one receives the Holy Spirit in every sacrament, after all. … If the confirmations were invalid, or doubtfully valid, as a bystander, am I obliged in charity to do something about it?"
The two question address different aspects of the rite of confirmation.
I have no idea why the bishop would omit the laying on of hands prescribed in this part of the rite. This laying of hands is not done physically but by the bishop, and any priests who might minister the sacrament with him, extending their hands over the candidates.
All the same, while this laying on of hands is prescribed, it is not considered as being necessary for the validity of the sacrament.
The anointing with chrism is also considered as a laying on of hands and this gesture of anointing is the sacrament's essential matter.
For this reason, in the Roman rite, the anointing must always be done by hand and it is not permitted to use an instrument to do so.
Our correspondent could, perhaps, write a polite note to the bishop, simply mentioning that he had noticed this oversight in the rites of confirmation and that it would be good to recover this meaningful gesture.
The second situation is far more delicate. The sacramental formula is "N., be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit."
While it could be argued that this means essentially the same as "N., receive the Holy Spirit" this latter formula is not the sacramental form as currently used in the universal Church.
It is also highly debatable that the formula is truly equivalent, being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not exactly the same as receiving the Holy Spirit which, as our reader points out, happens in baptism and in other circumstances.
Sacramental theology, following St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that a change of wording that does not compromise meaning would be valid, albeit illicit.
The same theological tradition, however, states that under no circumstances may one ever put the validity of the sacraments at risk by using matter or forms that are merely probable.
In this case, the change is such that the confirmation is of doubtful validity and should be conditionally repeated.
Sacramental ministers have a very grave obligation before God and the faithful to be especially careful and precise with the essential rites of a sacrament. Ignorance is no excuse in this case as it is a minister's duty to know how to correctly administer a sacrament.
What can one do as an informed "bystander"? If possible, the problem should be solved immediately and discreetly by telling the priest he is not using a valid formula.
If this is not possible, and especially if the priest refuses to correct the error, the "bystander" should certainly inform the bishop so that he may provide the appropriate remedies.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
12:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home