I’ve just done some work on Confirmation, you might find this interesting: -
Confirmation is the Sacrament that now takes the Baptised and feeds and tends them to maturity. In Confirmation Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit that allows them to become more perfectly the image of their Lord. They gain strength, which allows them to bear witness to Him before the world and eagerly work for the building up of the Church, His body. Many theologians would argue that there is no separate right of Confirmation in the New Testament, based largely on Paul’s theology, in which the Spirit is the fundamental mark of belonging to Christ. Despite this, Fr. Francis Selman offers some quite detailed Scriptural basis for the practice. Father Richard McBrien argues that the Spirit is always given in connection with Baptism, however Ross Thompson notes that laying on of hands was a frequent New Testament sign of the gifting of the Spirit, sometimes following Baptism, sometimes denoting conferral of authority (and often accompanied by charismatic signs such as speaking in tongues). Karl Rahner goes further, asserting the existence of (albeit a few) texts in Acts which “attest the existence of a still very rudimentary rite in apostolic times: prayer, imposition of hands and gift of the Holy Spirit”. Komonchak notes a disjunction between water and the Spirit and especially cites Acts 8 as an example where Baptism was given in the name of Jesus by Philip to the Samaritan, yet it is not accompanied by the gift of the Holy Spirit. The connection between Baptism and the gifting of the Spirit has been retained in the Eastern Church, however in the West, St. Augustine’s elaboration of the doctrine of Original Sin against the Pelagians led to an increased sense of urgency about infant Baptism. This was compounded by the Western insistence on post baptismal rites being reserved to the bishop (CCC 1290). In the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215) and the letter of Pope Innocent to the bishop of Gubbio (416), we can see the rule set rather firmly. Presbyters may anoint the baptised with chrism but they are not to sign the brow with oil, “for that is reserved to bishops alone when they deliver the Spirit the Paraclete.” Clearly it was impractical for the bishop to turn up at every Baptism. As a result, theologians have struggled to formally identify the way in which the Spirit is given at Confirmation, having already been given at Baptism. The separation of the two rites was seen as less than ideal (although evidenced as early as Tertullian’s De Baptismo (c. 200) which has the baptismal rite divided into two parts: the water bath with its anointing and the imposition of hands, with the gift of the Holy Spirit being attributed to the latter. ).
The undesirability expressed regarding the separation of Baptism and Confirmation demonstrates the continuity between the two Sacraments, and in an attempt to maintain that continuity, efforts were made to ensure that the post-baptismal rites were administered as soon as possible following Baptism. From the ninth century on, a self contained “rite of Confirmation” developed from a practice hitherto known only in Rome became more common (CCC 1291), and by the thirteenth century, the situation was a little more relaxed. It wasn’t until the high Middle Ages that a specific theology of Confirmation was worked out, largely in order to justify the autonomous rite carried out only by the bishop. The scholastic theologians considered the Sacrament in the context of what effect the it had on a person already Baptised, as opposed to the older context of initiation. It was at this point that it came to be understood that Confirmation provides gratia ad robur (grace for strength)—the armor of the soldier of Christ. The theologian Peter Lombard contrasted the Spirit given at Confirmation “for strengthening” with the gift of grace given at Baptism “for forgiveness”. In 1910, Pope Pius X promulgated the decree Quam Singulari which placed first confession prior to first Eucharist, Confirmation was to be delayed until a later age. This laid the groundwork for a theology that taught Confirmation as the Sacrament of maturity. Vatican II wisely avoided imposing a uniform rule regarding age and Rahner insists that the question is purely a pastoral one.
It could be conceivably argued, based on the study outlined above, that Baptism and Confirmation could be considered one Sacrament, however the practice of the Eastern Churches emphasises the unity of Christian initiation, while the practice of the Latin Church expressly the communion of the new Christian with the bishop (CCC 1292). Confirmation can be seen as a ratification or sealing of Baptism. It would seem a wise division, loyal to the teaching of Vatican II which wanted to emphasise “…several distinct steps,” by which “the time of the catechumenate, which is intended as a period of suitable instruction, may be sanctified by sacred rites to be celebrated at successive intervals of time.” SC 64. Undoubtedly, the delay of Confirmation for those Baptised as infants, provides a valuable opportunity to ratify freely and deliberately, what was done for them at Baptism, focusing their minds on the missionary dimension of the baptismal commitment. A counter argument to this approach is that it ignores the primary purpose of Confirmation which is not to make a commitment, but to receive a gift.
