![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
SUMMARY
”The unhistorical are usually, without knowing it, enslaved to a fairly recent past.” When making this statement in his inaugural lecture at Cambridge, 1954, C. S. Lewis certainly was not aware of our quoting him tor a purpose slightly different from his. Anyway, recent criticism, which was passed on dogmatists because of their unjustified equalization between the decrees of the first Vatican Council and the ancient councils, especially Trent, brought us to an inquiry into the real value of Tridentine canons on Confirmation. As the historical context greatly determines this valuation, we tried, in this first article, to re-construct the various stages of growth, the origin of those canons. The seventh Session of the Council of Trent notoriously differs from previous sessions in that it, for the first time, uses a basis of heretical doctrine, quoted as such out of reformation texts, in order to clearly define the catholic position. Hence methodical difficulties, which in a later contribution will be dealt with.
Concerning confirmation four statements were presented. 1. Luther's assertion about Confirmation not being a sacrament. 2. The Confessio Augustana alleging the Fathers had instituted this rite. 3. Melanchton who considered it as a mere catechetical ceremony, by means of which bishops were upholding their position. 4. The Cologne Reformers pretending that any simple priest was authorized to administer confirmation.
During ten days, January 20th till 29th, 1547, the theologians repelled those statements by arguments taken from Scripture and Tradition. Systematically they avoided discussing any kind of differences among catholic schools, in order to strike only heretical positions. The result was compiled in a summa, where the above mentioned articles 1, 2, 3 were proposed as to be simply condemned; where article 4 was suggested as not to be condemned but with comment. Finally a few statements were added by the theologians, equally to be condemned as such.
Thus, the prelates, from February 8th till 21st, were to examine the theologians' propositions. Without any opposition articles 1, 2, 3 were rejected as heresies. Article 4 however caused difficulties: some liked to condemn it as such, others on the contrary suggested to omit the term”any simple priest”, while a third group would have the formula adapted to the Florentine ”ordinarius minister est episcopus”. This, because of their knowledge about some historical cases, where the Pope had delegated simple priests to the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation. On February 26th copies of the canons were delivered to the prelates. And in four assemblies, on March 1st and 2d, their final redaction was achieved. The ”ordinarius minister” of Florence, only at the last night before the solemn session, was accepted for the third canon.
Thus far we only made a file of the confirmation canons' origin. Later on, we hope to discuss the theological qualification of those canons, and to make clear the importance of the new method used in the seventh session.