One of the priests aligned with Fr. Hewko, Fr. Raphael Arrizaga, has apparently taken it upon himself to begin administering confirmations.

Here’s his argument:

https://benedictinos.blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/pdf_the-extraordinary-minister-of-confirmation.pdf 



Confusion reigns.

In the grand scheme of things, with all the confusion we have (new-sspx, indult, "Bishop" Pfeiffer, etc) this is not a big deal.  People can get confirmed this way and then conditionally (if they want) when a real bishop is around.  Some families can't get confirmation except once very 5-6 years (that's being optimistic).  Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I’d say this only adds to the confusion.

Yes, it seems a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction can delegate a simple priest to perform confirmations in necessity.

The next question is: Can a bishop without ordinary jurisdiction delegate a priest on the basis of supplied jurisdiction in necessity?  +de Mallerais seemed to affirm it when he defended +Lazo’s confirmations on the basis of his certainly valid priesthood, despite being consecrated bishop in the NREC.

But here, we are confronted by a novel development: A priest taking it upon himself to perform confirmations (?) without any delegation at all (supplied or otherwise).

The possibility of such an argument and/or course of action never even occurred to me, and seems not too far from priests pretending to consecrate bishops, on the disputed pretext that the episcopal power is already latent within their priesthood/holy orders, and necessity “activates” it (ie., the basic argument of some conclavists).

Not sure if I will bother to study the matter further, but my “impression” is that this sounds shaky.

It's not disputed that priests have the power to confirm, as that his the regular practice in the Catholic Eastern Rites ... provided they have the jurisdiction from their bishop to do so.

So given the Crisis, if we believe God supplies jurisdiction for Confessions and for Matrimony, I don't see that there's any stretch to assert that God would also supply it for Confirmations.

I'm convinced that these would be valid.  Otherwise, I'd have to question Confessions and Matrimony also.

I just read Father's citations from Canon Law, etc., and the case is compelling.  I no longer have any doubt that these are valid.

It's not disputed that priests have the power to confirm, as that his the regular practice in the Catholic Eastern Rites ... provided they have the jurisdiction from their bishop to do so.

So given the Crisis, if we believe God supplies jurisdiction for Confessions and for Matrimony, I don't see that there's any stretch to assert that God would also supply it for Confirmations.

I'm convinced that these would be valid.  Otherwise, I'd have to question Confessions and Matrimony also.

Fair points. 

Just trying to wrap my head around the new idea, and wondering why it’s only emerging 60 years into the crisis.

I don’t recall Lefebvre ever endorsing the position that his priests could simply all perform their own confirmations, even though he was the only SSPX bishop for 18 years, and families all over the world were waiting years for him to come by.  Seems like he could have saved himself (and the faithful) a lot of trouble if there’s really no problem.

I’d say this only adds to the confusion.

Yes, it seems a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction can delegate a simple priest to perform confirmations in necessity.

The the principle is sound:  In the case of a necessity, a priest can confirm.

The next question is: Can a bishop without ordinary jurisdiction delegate a priest on the basis of supplied jurisdiction in necessity?  +de Mallerais seemed to affirm it when he defended +Lazo’s confirmations on the basis of his certainly valid priesthood, despite being consecrated bishop in the NREC.

The entire Trad movement is without ordinary jurisdiction so, at this point, it's irrelevant.  We're in a war zone.

But here, we are confronted by a novel development: A priest taking it upon himself to perform confirmations (?) without any delegation at all (supplied or otherwise).

Well, honestly, we don't know if got encouragement from a Trad bishop to do what he's doing.  If he didn't mention it, I guess we assume he didn't.  But then again, how important is confirmation?  Especially now that we know the new-sspx won't be giving doubt-free confirmations in the near future.  Maybe Fr Arrizaga is just "reading the tea leaves" and anticipating the need that the new-sspx's actions will justifiably cause?

The possibility of such an argument and/or course of action never even occurred to me, and seems not too far from priests pretending to consecrate bishops, on the disputed pretext that the episcopal power is already latent within their priesthood/holy orders, and necessity “activates” it (ie., the basic argument of some conclavists).

Such a principle doesn't really exist, of priest's consecrating bishops.  This would go to far.

Just trying to wrap my head around the new idea, and wondering why it’s only emerging 60 years into the crisis.

I don’t recall Lefebvre ever endorsing the position that his priests could simply all perform their own confirmations, even though he was the only SSPX bishop for 18 years, and families all over the world were waiting years for him to come by.  Seems like he could have saved himself (and the faithful) a lot of trouble if there’s really no problem.

This is an important point that needs addressing, Lad's good points notwithstanding.

This is an important point that needs addressing, Lad's good points notwithstanding.

I think that's part of my point.  So, the only REASON we have for believing that Bishops are required are PRECISELY this practice of Traditional bishops globe-trotting to administer Confirmations.  But the theological/Canonical reasons cited by Father in his paper are compelling.

Perhaps the only counter-argument would be that since Traditional Catholics DID have bishops, there wasn't sufficient need.  But I disagree with that.  Really, the Traditional Bishops don't have jurisdiction themselves, so in a sense they're not much different than the priests in that regard.  Do they somehow have some SUPER power of Order when they can validly confirm without jurisdiction but priests need it?  That doesn't work, since it's either in the power of the Order of Priest or it's not.  There's no super-plus power of Order for bishops to confirm.

Now, some claim that in necessity even a priest can ordain another priest, but this is highly doubtful at best and disputed among theologians.  But no one disputes that a priest has the power of Order to administer Confirmation.

It didn't emerge only after 60 years into the Crisis.  Fr. Bitzer had been confirming people in the 1970s (or 1980s?) before there were numerous traditional bishops available to do so.  He did recommend that people be conditionally confirmed later if they had the chance to be confirmed by a traditional bishop later just in case.  But only conditionally, mind you, not absolutely.

I’m not sure a single independent priest alleviates the concern.

But perhaps Lefebvre never had priests confirm for pastoral reasons (ie., they would freak out that he was going too far, and/or question validity, etc)?