Is a priest allowed to do the Sacrament of Confirmation even if there is no danger of death? Is the bishop allowed to delegate this for any reason? Was this done before Vatican II? If the priest is not allowed does that mean that the confirmations would be invalid?

Specifically the Latin/Roman rite before Vatican II changes.

Is a priest allowed to do the Sacrament of Confirmation even if there is no danger of death? Is the bishop allowed to delegate this for any reason? Was this done before Vatican II? If the priest is not allowed does that mean that the confirmations would be invalid?

From the Code of Canon Law;

 THE MINISTER OF CONFIRMATION

Can.  882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Can.  883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

Can.  884 §1. The diocesan bishop is to administer confirmation personally or is to take care that another bishop administers it. If necessity requires it, he can grant the faculty to one or more specific presbyters, who are to administer this sacrament.

§2. For a grave cause the bishop and even the presbyter endowed with the faculty of confirming in virtue of the law or the special grant of the competent authority can in single cases also associate presbyters with themselves to administer the sacrament.

Can.  885 §1. The diocesan bishop is ob-liged to take care that the sacrament of confir-mation is conferred on subjects who properly and reasonably seek it.

§2. A presbyter who possesses this faculty must use it for the sake of those in whose favor the faculty was granted.

Can.  886 §1. A bishop in his diocese legitimately administers the sacrament of confirmation even to faithful who are not his subjects, unless their own ordinary expressly prohibits it.

§2. To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.

Can.  887 A presbyter who possesses the faculty of administering confirmation also confers this sacrament licitly on externs in the territory assigned to him unless their proper ordinary prohibits it; he cannot confer it validly on anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 883, n. 3.

Can.  888 Within the territory in which they are able to confer confirmation, ministers can administer it even in exempt places.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P32.HTM

Is the bishop allowed to delegate this for any reason?

No, according to the Code of Canon Law the bishop is not allowed to delegate this for "any" reason. The following situations are why the bishop delegates the faculty for a priest administer the sacrament of confirmation;

The presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

If necessity requires it, he can grant the faculty to one or more specific presbyters, who are to administer this sacrament.

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:


Some presbyter are provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

There goes Poche again, citing from the 1983 "code" that no one care about, wasting everyone's time.

Here is the correct code's provisions on the matter:

Canon 782

The ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop only.  The extraordinary minister is a priest who either by common law or by special indult of the Holy See has received faculty to confirm.  This faculty have by law the Cardinals, abbots and prelates nullius, vicars and prefects apostolic, who cannot validly make use of the faculty expect within the limits of their territory, and for the time of their term of office only.  In references to Cardinals, Cf. No. 161, 23.  The priest of the Latin Rite who has this power by virtue of an indult can validly confer Confirmation on Catholics of his Rite only, unless the indult expressly allows more.  It is not lawful to priests of the Oriental Rite who have the faculty or the privilege to give Confirmation together with Baptism to the infants of their Rite, to confirm infants of the Latin Rite.

Canon 783

The bishop can within his diocese lawfully confirm also strangers, unless there is an explicit prohibition of their bishop to go outside the diocese for Confirmation.  In the diocese of another bishop, a bishop must have at least the presumed permission of the local Ordinary, except when he confirms his own subjects privately and without crozier and mitre.

Canon 784

The priest who has a local Apostolic privilege to confirm, may also confirm strangers in the territory of his jurisdiction, unless the Ordinaries of these strangers have explicitly forbidden their people to receive Confirmation outside the diocese.

Canon 785

The bishop is obliged to administer Confirmation to his subjects who lawfully and reasonably ask for it, especially at the time of his visitation of the diocese.  The same obligation rests with the priest who, by Apostolic privilege has the right to confirm in regard to those in whose favor this faculty was given him.  The Ordinary who is lawfully prevented, or who has no faculty to confirm, must see to it that at least every five years this Sacrament is administered among his subjects.  If he gravely neglects to administer this Sacrament, either himself of through another, the archbishop shall report the matter to the Holy See.

There goes Poche again, citing from the 1983 "code" that no one care about, wasting everyone's time.

Maybe nobody cares about the 1983 code but if you want your confirmation to be recognized by the Catholic Church as valid then the correct book of rules is the 1983 Code.

Quote from: poche

There goes Poche again, citing from the 1983 "code" that no one care about, wasting everyone's time.

Maybe nobody cares about the 1983 code but if you want your confirmation to be recognized by the Catholic Church as valid then the correct book of rules is the 1983 Code.

Only if one regards the conciliar church and the Catholic Church as the same thing.

Secondly, you don't even know your own NO rules.  Following the 1983 is not necessarily required for the conciliar church to recognize something as valid.  Many NO sacraments, including confirmation, can be validly, although illicitly, performed in the eyes of the conciliar church in full violation of the 1983 code.

Smarten up, Poche.  It's better to know what one is talking about before speaking.

You are correct. Adherence to the 1983 Code is not required in order for a sacrament to be valid. For example if a validly ordained priest says mass then that mass would be valid. However some sacraments require that the priest have faculties in order for them to be valid. The sacrament of Marriage, for example requires that the priest who officiates at teh wedding have the faculties to do so or the marriage would be invalid. The same is true for confessions. Outside of the danger of death the confessions of a priest who does not have the faculties granted by his ordinary would be considered invalid. With respect to confirmations administererd by priests of the Latin rite it appears that under the both the Code of 1917 and the Code of 1983 that they would be invalid if the priest did not have the appropriate faculties.    

Poche, the novus ordo troll, whose ignorant conciliarist bleating no actual Trad cares about.

As far as the authors of the '83 "code" are concerned,  :heretic: