Validity of the Confirmation

[VlaamsArdennees]

Hello everyone,

I had a discussion with a friend about the validity of the Confirmation. According to him most of the Confirmations are invalid because pope Paul VI has changed the matter from only olive oil to any vegetable oil. He quoted mgr. Fellay to strentghen his view. He also said (and this seems for me a good reason) that the pope may not change the matter of Sacraments, like he may not change the bread by a waffle, concerning the Eucharist.

Nevertheless I think his view is too exagerated, obsessed by rules and is too fanatic. What do you think about it?

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, a waffle is a form of wafer, and wafers are an accepted form of bread that can and are used for the Eucharist. So the waffle thing has already sailed.

(Obviously, a waffle that is made with anything other than wheat flour and water, or which had been allowed to rise, would not be legit. Using a waffle topped with powdered sugar, fruit, or butter and syrup, is Right Out. But there’s really no difference but size between a waffle iron and a wafer iron, waffles are a lot smaller in many European countries, and there is such a thing as unleavened waffles.)

Moving along…

The thing about not being able to change formats of oil is an old thing. If you ask our Orthodox brethren, a lot of them will say that no Baptism or Confirmation is legit, unless it uses the special aromatic chrism made exclusively by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Obviously, in the West we never had any chrism made in Constantinople, and our practices predate the very existence of Constantinople. Obviously a lot of other ancient Christian groups would also disagree. (And yeah, it’s weird to have people simultaneously think the Pope is way too powerful, while going actually imperial with the Ekumen Patriarch.)

Wheat can be grown and transported all over the world, and the same is true of wine. Because Communion is the source and summit of our faith, and because priests need only a morsel and a drop for valid Masses, priests all over the world manage to get wheat and wine by God’s grace.

But olive trees and olive oil are a bit more difficult, and oils of anointing were not strictly defined. Therefore the Pope just formalized what was already done in many different times and places. Using olive oil and balsam is still the fuller sign, but vegetable oils have always been acceptable to be used in emergencies or places where olive oil is unobtainium. (Animal oils, like butter or tallow, have always been Right Out, just like it’s forbidden to baptize someone in beer.)

 

[Mintaka]

Anyway… if you read various documentary sources, you will see that although most early Christians tried to have their chrism contain “oil and balsam,” their definition of “oil” and “balsam” could vary a lot. Also, some bishops tried to follow the Biblical recipe for anointing oil, while others added all sorts of aromatic ingredients of their own devising, like rosewater. There were also elaborate recipes for “oil of gladness.”

In some places, chrism was called “myron,” a name deriving from “myrrh.” This kind of chrism or myron had tons of spices and aromatics, in imitation of the perfumes used by the women to anoint Jesus’ body.

So at this point, I think the Pope basically went with whatever people could get.

Moreover, there are a lot of early Christian sources that deal with the inability of a bishop to get any chrism or any oil, and basically say that if it’s that bad, the baptismal water will take care of everything. (In which case, people are definitely covered, no matter what kind of oil is used.) People should be anointed when chrism is available, but given death rates during famines so bad that olive oil was unavailable in Mediterranean areas, obviously a lot of people wouldn’t have been anointed ever.

That said, it’s obviously better to have chrism that’s made out of olive oil, because the sign is fuller.

 

[Phemie]

I guess since we use olive oil our Confirmations are valid.

As for balsam, it can be so many different resins that who can tell? For a couple of years our Sacred Chrism cruet had a brown sediment at the bottom and, instead of its usual strong treeish kind of aroma, it smelled like vanilla. In fact, sugar cookies came to mind every time we had Baptism. I don’t have any idea what they had put in the olive oil to make the Chrism in those years but if someone told me vanilla beans it wouldn’t come as a big surprise.

 

[bearer]

Don’t forget that the Holy Spirit is the one who does all of the work in the sacrament. This question of oil is much ado about nothing.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hello everyone,

I had a discussion with a friend about the validity of the Confirmation. According to him most of the Confirmations are invalid because pope Paul VI has changed the matter from only olive oil to any vegetable oil. He quoted mgr. Fellay to strentghen his view. He also said (and this seems for me a good reason) that the pope may not change the matter of Sacraments, like he may not change the bread by a waffle, concerning the Eucharist.

Nevertheless I think his view is too exagerated, obsessed by rules and is too fanatic. What do you think about it?

Your friend is incorrect.

Chrism is made with olive oil.

Blessed Paul VI did not change the matter of the sacrament of Confirmation…he changed the form.

liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/Confirmation-AC.pdf

As Vicar of Christ and the head of the College of Bishops, the Pope unilaterally may alter sacraments when there is not a specific prescription from the Lord. He may also clarify what is essential, as Pope Pius XII did regarding the Sacrament of Order.

Blessed Paul VI altered, for the Latin Rite, the form of both Confirmation and the Sacrament of the Sick…as was his right. Indeed the world’s bishops, gathered in ecumenical council, directed that revisions were urgently needed to reform the liturgy because of inadequacies. These may be read in Sacrosanctum Concilium. These mandates included each sacrament.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Where Blesed Paul VI made a change relative to the oil used in a sacrament was with the Sacrament of the Sick. He decreed that any plant oil could be used as the matter for this sacrament…again as was his prerogative.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6anoin.htm

*Further, 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.

As regards the number of anointings and the parts of the body to be anointed, it has seemed to us opportune to proceed to a simplification of the rite.

Therefore, since this revision in certain points touches upon the sacramental rite itself, by our Apostolic authority we lay down that the following is to be observed for the future in the Latin Rite:

THE SACRAMENT OF THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK IS ADMINISTERED TO THOSE WHO ARE DANGEROUSLY ILL, BY ANOINTING THEM ON THE FOREHEAD AND HANDS WITH OLIVE OIL, OR, IF OPPORTUNE, WITH ANOTHER VEGETABLE OIL PROPERLY BLESSED, AND SAYING ONCE ONLY THE FOLLOWING WORDS: “PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE DOMINUS GRATIA SPIRITUS SANCTI, UT A PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SALVET ATQUE PROPITIUS ALLEVIET.”

In case of necessity however it is sufficient that a single anointing be given on the forehead or, because of the particular condition of the sick person, on another more suitable part of the body, the whole formula being pronounced. *
[Apologies to the moderators. I chose, since the Blessed Paul VI used all caps to indicate what he was doing relative to the fullness of his apostolic authority, I left the text as it was.]

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Don’t forget that the Holy Spirit is the one who does all of the work in the sacrament. This question of oil is much ado about nothing.

This is not correct. It is not much ado about nothing.

The oil is the matter of the sacrament.
The words are the form of the sacrament.

Both are essential to the valid conferral of the sacrament.

The sacrament can only be administered by a bishop or by a priest who has the faculty to confirm…either derived from the law itself or from a delegation.

It is normative in the Churches of the East to confirm, according to their law and traditions under their proper hierarchy.

 

[bearer]

My point is that the OP’s premise is false, and that besides that, the Church can alter the norms if need be. There’s evidently no need to doubt the validity of this example.