Dist. 7, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/7/q/bon-sent-IV-d7-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether anyone may dispense confirmation, at least in case of necessity.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the power of dispensing this Sacrament; and it seems that anyone may dispense this Sacrament, at least in case of necessity:

1. Because, if anyone baptizes, the person is baptized: therefore baptism is of the greatest efficacy among the Sacraments, and what can do the greater can do the lesser: therefore if anyone can baptize, he can also confirm.

2. Likewise, in natural things it is so, that where a thing is, there it operates, not where it ought to be and is not: therefore if the Holy Spirit is in a good layman and not in a wicked bishop, it seems that he would rather confirm through the layman.

3. Likewise, a simple priest anoints with chrism on the crown of the head; either then he does something, or nothing. If nothing, then he does it in vain; if he does something, by parity of reason he can anoint on the forehead; but this is to confirm: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if the bishop alone can do this, this is either on account of order, or on account of jurisdiction. If on account of order, since he has no other order than a priest: therefore the priest too [can do it]; if on account of jurisdiction: therefore one elected but not consecrated can do this.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Master says in the text, that « this Sacrament is given by the highest priests alone, otherwise it is not to be counted among the Sacraments of the Church, but rather to be held void »: therefore it can be given by no others.

2. Likewise, Rabanus says: « Through the imposition of the hand of the highest priest the Paraclete is handed over to the baptized »; and he calls the highest priest the bishop: therefore if another should anoint and say the words, he does not confer this Sacrament.

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason:* because, at Acts, chapter eight, a certain Gloss says that that Philip, at whose preaching the Samaritans had believed, could not impose hands, because he was not an Apostle: therefore this was granted to the Apostles alone.

### *Conclusion.* — *Confirmation neither can nor ought to be dispensed except by bishops.*

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament neither can nor ought to be dispensed by others, and if others presume [to do so], they accomplish nothing. — And the reason for this is that the authority of the Church was derived to its members according to the *order* of the Church *first;* hence just as the Apostles alone could do this, so now their successors alone can.

But then there is a question: *why* is this Sacrament of order handed on by bishops alone and committed to bishops alone? It must be said that the reason for this is that they and their successors are the principal prelates in the Church; but the office of a prelate is twofold, namely to establish inferiors in their grade and to place them in order, and to set up a wall, that is, to defend his flock: therefore they alone confer orders and confirm them.

Others say otherwise, that in these two Sacraments the fullness of grace is given; therefore they ought to be given by those who have the fullness of authority, by others

not. For this same reason the consecration of churches and of abbots, since they are works of excellence, are granted to bishops alone, for the reason that they have excellent authority.

Another reason can be given, namely that to the bishops themselves belongs the care of subjects, and especially of clerics, since they have care of all; although the watch is committed to others, yet it pleased the Holy Spirit that subjects should all receive some Sacrament from a prelate *immediately;* likewise, that clerics [should receive] some [from him]: and that is the twofold Sacrament, in which a twofold seal is imprinted. Hence the Apostle too, in the first [letter] to the Romans: *I long to see you, that I may impart to you something of spiritual grace for your confirming.* — Many reasons and fittingnesses can be assigned here, because in such matters *fittingness* rather than *necessity* has place, because it is *institution* that especially produces necessity.

1. To that which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that it is not alike: for because baptism is the Sacrament of necessity, therefore its power is granted to all; but it is not so concerning confirmation.

2. To that which is objected, that the Holy Spirit operates where he is; it must be said that the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which he is said to operate in us, is twofold, namely *grace making pleasing,* and thus he operates our works unto the salvation of him in whom he is; and *grace freely given,* and through this he operates salvation in another: and this latter remains in a person even when the grace making pleasing withdraws, by divine dispensation, so that the salvation of the subject may not be impeded by the malice of the prelate.

3. To that which is objected concerning the priest, that he anoints on the crown of the head; it must be said that he effects nothing; and yet it is not done in vain, because it *instructs* and *effects* the conjoined thing, namely baptism. Moreover, if he does something, it is not however as the Sacrament of confirmation.

4. To that which is objected last: whence the bishop has this; it must be said that [he has it] neither from jurisdiction nor from the priestly order, but by *episcopal authority and dignity;* and this denotes order in eminence. But this eminence is conferred on the bishop when he is consecrated; and therefore if he renounces jurisdiction, he can still confirm. Although therefore he does not have it from the priestly order nor from temporal jurisdiction, he has it nevertheless from something that surpasses both. — Some however say that he has this by reason of institution.