Commenting on this past Sunday's Gospel, John 14:15-21, Augustine writes the following (in Tractate 74, excuse the old translation), on how we can have the Holy Spirit and yet still receive it "again." He's not directly commenting on confirmation, but as the promise to receive the Holy Spirit is a prophecy of Pentecost, and confirmation is the sacrament of Pentecost, it seems relevant:
How, then, does the Lord say, If you love me, keep my commandments: and I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter; when He says so of the Holy Spirit, without [having] whom we can neither love God nor keep His commandments? How can we love so as to receive Him, without whom we cannot love at all? Or how shall we keep the commandments so as to receive Him, without whom we have no power to keep them?
We are therefore to understand that he who loves has already the Holy Spirit, and by what he has becomes worthy of a fuller possession, that by having the more he may love the more. Already, therefore, had the disciples that Holy Spirit whom the Lord promised, for without Him they could not call Him Lord; but they had Him not as yet in the way promised by the Lord. Accordingly they both had, and had Him not, inasmuch as they had Him not as yet to the same extent as He was afterwards to be possessed. They had Him, therefore, in a more limited sense: He was yet to be given them in an ampler measure. They had Him in a hidden way, they were yet to receive Him in a way that was manifest; for this present possession had also a bearing on that fuller gift of the Holy Spirit, that they might come to a conscious knowledge of what they had. It is in speaking of this gift that the apostle says: Now we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is of God, that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1 Corinthians 2:12 For that same manifest bestowal of the Holy Spirit the Lord made, not once, but on two separate occasions. For close on the back of His resurrection from the dead He breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. And because He then gave [the Spirit], did He on that account fail in afterwards sending Him according to His promise? Or was it not the very same Spirit who was both then breathed upon them by Himself, and afterwards sent by Him from heaven? . . .
Accordingly, the promise is no vain one, either to him who has not [the Holy Spirit], or to him who has. For it is made to him who has not, in order that he may have; and to him who has, that he may have more abundantly. For were it not that He was possessed by some in smaller measure than by others, St. Elisha would not have said to St. Elijah, Let the spirit that is in you be in a twofold measure in me. 2 Kings 2:9
Very Augustinian, and very appropriate indeed, John M! *This* understanding was indeed something I was exposed to in my first seminary studies in the 1990s. The idea of deeper gifts, of grace upon grace, is natural and perhaps necessary; to possess the Holy Spirit is not a simple binary! From a catechetical perspective, though, I still felt less than fully satisfied. I felt like it should be possible to say how Confirmation completes Baptism without making Baptism incomplete or Confirmation redundant, and to say that I felt like it should be possible to say what Confirmation does that Baptism doesn’t do—what is its specific sacramental grace. The language of strength and boldness, rather than growth and maturity, helped with this. Connecting Baptism to heaven, and Confirmation to the challenges of life on earth, was the final missing piece.
As of this past Sunday, I’m fifteen years confirmed.
In 2010 I came back to the Church; then I found out there were Confirmation classes the following spring. After wrestling with the decision on whether to take them so soon, I did.
We learned what the Catechism teaches, and I combed it thoroughly for any red flags identifying it as something I couldn’t accept. I came close at one point, but that’s mostly because I didn’t understand the uniqueness of the papacy. I had already narrowed it down to the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church; I didn’t want to choose the Catholic Church solely because it’s what I was familiar with—but I also didn’t want to reject the Cathedral Church on that basis!
In the end, I found I did believe what the Catechism taught (at least intellectually), and on May 10, 2011 I was confirmed.
I also struggled between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy. For me, it came down to the papacy. I rejected sola scriptura because all the Protestant denominations, and the plausibility of their conflicting arguments on important practical points that couldn’t be swept aside, made it clear to me that scripture alone, even as persuasively interpreted by knowledgeable exegetes, is not enough. Scripture and tradition helps, but there must be an interpreter with authority beyond that of persuasive arguments: the Magisterium, the bishops. But if even bishops can break with other bishops, there must be a way to tell which group of bishops to follow—and once again that way must go beyond persuasive arguments and appeals to my own judgment. For that job description, I see no applicants besides the Bishop of Rome.
Nice to hear from someone else who struggled similarly to me, Deacon!
While I did feel somewhat confident in my decision to be confirmed in the Catholic Church at the time, I’ve since learned things that, had I known them then, would have laid what doubts I had to rest.
I am more confident than ever that I made the right decision returning to the Catholic Church—but at the same time, I appreciate more than ever why the Eastern Orthodox Church appealed to me, and I look forward all the more to when the Church is one and whole again, so that future generations need not worry about making such a choice.
Check out the Bible Project on anointing. Biblically, anointing is simply a different thing. It is the thing of priests, prophets, kings, altars. Baptism brings you into the people of God, but the people of God is a priestly nation.
The basic point they make about anointing, and they're Protestants, is that anointing means something like making something a bridge to God. I take this further, with the Catholic sacramental understanding, to say that baptism is for you, while chrismation is for everyone else. Don't take that to the bank, though, because I'm the one saying it, not anyone with authority.
That’s a lovely idea, D, and very Bible Project-y! I love the Bible Project guys, I use their work all the time in my Scripture classes. In this case, though, the idea of “Confirmation as a sacrament of priesthood” runs into a double issue: First, like most of what we say about Confirmation, this idea is already present in Baptism, which also includes an anointing with chrism:
“The baptized have become ‘living stones’ to be ‘built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.’ By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.’ Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.” (CCC 1268)
Thus, Confirmation does not *confer* priestly office as a new thing separate from Baptism, but merely “completes” the priestly office conferred in Baptism: “This ‘character’ [of Confirmation] perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and ‘the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio).’” (CCC 1305)
There is, however, one exception where what you said is clearly true: the case of an adult convert. Note the last sentence in this quotation: “The first anointing with sacred chrism, by the priest, has remained attached to the baptismal rite; it signifies the participation of the one baptized in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. If Baptism is conferred on an adult, there is only one post-baptismal anointing, that of Confirmation.” (CCC 1291) So in that case, the anointing of Confirmation would also be the anointing into the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ.
I think the distinction lies in my last sentence. The anointing of baptism connects you to God, but the anointing of confirmation is oriented towards gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the application of the spirit in the world. Etc.
Also, I don't know that the anointing during baptism has very much to do with the sacrament itself. I don't think the church denies baptism done with water alone. Though it is prescribed by ritual, anointing is not part of baptism essentially. Otherwise, the baptism of my children included other essential elements like salt and spittle. (The latter was excluded (!!!) during COVID!)
The most fruitful move here is your refusal to make Confirmation a celebration of age or growth. That opens a much richer pneumatological reading. The Spirit does not merely “top up” baptismal grace; He seals and energizes the baptized person for witness, communion, and struggle. The Eastern order of initiation makes this visible with almost scandalous simplicity: even the newly baptized infant is not outside the Church’s Pentecostal life. Strength comes before usefulness; gift comes before comprehension. That may be one of the most beautiful corrections Confirmation offers to modern instincts — we keep treating sacraments as milestones, while the Spirit treats them as life.
This is what I was taught from my first seminary studies in the early 1990s to my diaconal formation ten years ago, C! Confirmation is not just a rite of passage, and certainly not per se a transition into Catholic adulthood.
Somehow, though, I don’t remember anyone encapsulating in an intuitively understandable way how Confirmation completes Baptism without making Baptism incomplete or Confirmation redundant. I like your “Strength comes before usefulness; gift comes before comprehension” formulae!
Thank you, I’m very glad that formulation was useful. Your essay made the distinction unusually clear: not completion as repair of something defective, but completion as the Spirit’s strengthening of baptismal life for witness in a wounded world. That is a much more intelligible sacramental logic than the usual rite-of-passage framing.
I am an Eastern Orthodox priest. I like your comments on Holy Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and Holy Communion. This is why the East does all three simultaneously. IMHO, Christians should not separate them without cause, for instance, emergency baptism of a baby at a hospital. It is worth noting that Maronites, Melkites, and other Eastern Catholics maintain the old tradition of all three concurrently.
Love that image of healing and especially limbering. Making our spiritual muscles ready! A preparation for the race or battles ahead, not a crown for achievement. What child in eighth grade is mature enough to face life's (or high school's) struggles alone? They (and all of us) need that strength, wisdom, and courage to face (and transform) the challenges we encounter. Makes me think of a favorite Lauds prayer: "As they go through the bitter valley they make it a place of springs! . . . They walk with ever growing strength" (Psalm 84).
Commenting on this past Sunday's Gospel, John 14:15-21, Augustine writes the following (in Tractate 74, excuse the old translation), on how we can have the Holy Spirit and yet still receive it "again." He's not directly commenting on confirmation, but as the promise to receive the Holy Spirit is a prophecy of Pentecost, and confirmation is the sacrament of Pentecost, it seems relevant:
How, then, does the Lord say, If you love me, keep my commandments: and I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter; when He says so of the Holy Spirit, without [having] whom we can neither love God nor keep His commandments? How can we love so as to receive Him, without whom we cannot love at all? Or how shall we keep the commandments so as to receive Him, without whom we have no power to keep them?
We are therefore to understand that he who loves has already the Holy Spirit, and by what he has becomes worthy of a fuller possession, that by having the more he may love the more. Already, therefore, had the disciples that Holy Spirit whom the Lord promised, for without Him they could not call Him Lord; but they had Him not as yet in the way promised by the Lord. Accordingly they both had, and had Him not, inasmuch as they had Him not as yet to the same extent as He was afterwards to be possessed. They had Him, therefore, in a more limited sense: He was yet to be given them in an ampler measure. They had Him in a hidden way, they were yet to receive Him in a way that was manifest; for this present possession had also a bearing on that fuller gift of the Holy Spirit, that they might come to a conscious knowledge of what they had. It is in speaking of this gift that the apostle says: Now we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is of God, that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1 Corinthians 2:12 For that same manifest bestowal of the Holy Spirit the Lord made, not once, but on two separate occasions. For close on the back of His resurrection from the dead He breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. And because He then gave [the Spirit], did He on that account fail in afterwards sending Him according to His promise? Or was it not the very same Spirit who was both then breathed upon them by Himself, and afterwards sent by Him from heaven? . . .
Accordingly, the promise is no vain one, either to him who has not [the Holy Spirit], or to him who has. For it is made to him who has not, in order that he may have; and to him who has, that he may have more abundantly. For were it not that He was possessed by some in smaller measure than by others, St. Elisha would not have said to St. Elijah, Let the spirit that is in you be in a twofold measure in me. 2 Kings 2:9
Very Augustinian, and very appropriate indeed, John M! *This* understanding was indeed something I was exposed to in my first seminary studies in the 1990s. The idea of deeper gifts, of grace upon grace, is natural and perhaps necessary; to possess the Holy Spirit is not a simple binary! From a catechetical perspective, though, I still felt less than fully satisfied. I felt like it should be possible to say how Confirmation completes Baptism without making Baptism incomplete or Confirmation redundant, and to say that I felt like it should be possible to say what Confirmation does that Baptism doesn’t do—what is its specific sacramental grace. The language of strength and boldness, rather than growth and maturity, helped with this. Connecting Baptism to heaven, and Confirmation to the challenges of life on earth, was the final missing piece.
I concur, the quote was really long so I didn't want to add more.
Good quotation and well-chosen excerpt!
As of this past Sunday, I’m fifteen years confirmed.
In 2010 I came back to the Church; then I found out there were Confirmation classes the following spring. After wrestling with the decision on whether to take them so soon, I did.
We learned what the Catechism teaches, and I combed it thoroughly for any red flags identifying it as something I couldn’t accept. I came close at one point, but that’s mostly because I didn’t understand the uniqueness of the papacy. I had already narrowed it down to the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church; I didn’t want to choose the Catholic Church solely because it’s what I was familiar with—but I also didn’t want to reject the Cathedral Church on that basis!
In the end, I found I did believe what the Catechism taught (at least intellectually), and on May 10, 2011 I was confirmed.
I also struggled between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy. For me, it came down to the papacy. I rejected sola scriptura because all the Protestant denominations, and the plausibility of their conflicting arguments on important practical points that couldn’t be swept aside, made it clear to me that scripture alone, even as persuasively interpreted by knowledgeable exegetes, is not enough. Scripture and tradition helps, but there must be an interpreter with authority beyond that of persuasive arguments: the Magisterium, the bishops. But if even bishops can break with other bishops, there must be a way to tell which group of bishops to follow—and once again that way must go beyond persuasive arguments and appeals to my own judgment. For that job description, I see no applicants besides the Bishop of Rome.
Nice to hear from someone else who struggled similarly to me, Deacon!
While I did feel somewhat confident in my decision to be confirmed in the Catholic Church at the time, I’ve since learned things that, had I known them then, would have laid what doubts I had to rest.
I am more confident than ever that I made the right decision returning to the Catholic Church—but at the same time, I appreciate more than ever why the Eastern Orthodox Church appealed to me, and I look forward all the more to when the Church is one and whole again, so that future generations need not worry about making such a choice.
Check out the Bible Project on anointing. Biblically, anointing is simply a different thing. It is the thing of priests, prophets, kings, altars. Baptism brings you into the people of God, but the people of God is a priestly nation.
The basic point they make about anointing, and they're Protestants, is that anointing means something like making something a bridge to God. I take this further, with the Catholic sacramental understanding, to say that baptism is for you, while chrismation is for everyone else. Don't take that to the bank, though, because I'm the one saying it, not anyone with authority.
That’s a lovely idea, D, and very Bible Project-y! I love the Bible Project guys, I use their work all the time in my Scripture classes. In this case, though, the idea of “Confirmation as a sacrament of priesthood” runs into a double issue: First, like most of what we say about Confirmation, this idea is already present in Baptism, which also includes an anointing with chrism:
“The baptized have become ‘living stones’ to be ‘built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.’ By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.’ Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.” (CCC 1268)
Thus, Confirmation does not *confer* priestly office as a new thing separate from Baptism, but merely “completes” the priestly office conferred in Baptism: “This ‘character’ [of Confirmation] perfects the common priesthood of the faithful, received in Baptism, and ‘the confirmed person receives the power to profess faith in Christ publicly and as it were officially (quasi ex officio).’” (CCC 1305)
There is, however, one exception where what you said is clearly true: the case of an adult convert. Note the last sentence in this quotation: “The first anointing with sacred chrism, by the priest, has remained attached to the baptismal rite; it signifies the participation of the one baptized in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. If Baptism is conferred on an adult, there is only one post-baptismal anointing, that of Confirmation.” (CCC 1291) So in that case, the anointing of Confirmation would also be the anointing into the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ.
I think the distinction lies in my last sentence. The anointing of baptism connects you to God, but the anointing of confirmation is oriented towards gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the application of the spirit in the world. Etc.
Also, I don't know that the anointing during baptism has very much to do with the sacrament itself. I don't think the church denies baptism done with water alone. Though it is prescribed by ritual, anointing is not part of baptism essentially. Otherwise, the baptism of my children included other essential elements like salt and spittle. (The latter was excluded (!!!) during COVID!)
The most fruitful move here is your refusal to make Confirmation a celebration of age or growth. That opens a much richer pneumatological reading. The Spirit does not merely “top up” baptismal grace; He seals and energizes the baptized person for witness, communion, and struggle. The Eastern order of initiation makes this visible with almost scandalous simplicity: even the newly baptized infant is not outside the Church’s Pentecostal life. Strength comes before usefulness; gift comes before comprehension. That may be one of the most beautiful corrections Confirmation offers to modern instincts — we keep treating sacraments as milestones, while the Spirit treats them as life.
This is what I was taught from my first seminary studies in the early 1990s to my diaconal formation ten years ago, C! Confirmation is not just a rite of passage, and certainly not per se a transition into Catholic adulthood.
Somehow, though, I don’t remember anyone encapsulating in an intuitively understandable way how Confirmation completes Baptism without making Baptism incomplete or Confirmation redundant. I like your “Strength comes before usefulness; gift comes before comprehension” formulae!
Thank you, I’m very glad that formulation was useful. Your essay made the distinction unusually clear: not completion as repair of something defective, but completion as the Spirit’s strengthening of baptismal life for witness in a wounded world. That is a much more intelligible sacramental logic than the usual rite-of-passage framing.
Excellent post. A clear explanation of the complementary character of the two Sacraments.
🙏💛🙏
I am an Eastern Orthodox priest. I like your comments on Holy Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and Holy Communion. This is why the East does all three simultaneously. IMHO, Christians should not separate them without cause, for instance, emergency baptism of a baby at a hospital. It is worth noting that Maronites, Melkites, and other Eastern Catholics maintain the old tradition of all three concurrently.
Love that image of healing and especially limbering. Making our spiritual muscles ready! A preparation for the race or battles ahead, not a crown for achievement. What child in eighth grade is mature enough to face life's (or high school's) struggles alone? They (and all of us) need that strength, wisdom, and courage to face (and transform) the challenges we encounter. Makes me think of a favorite Lauds prayer: "As they go through the bitter valley they make it a place of springs! . . . They walk with ever growing strength" (Psalm 84).