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.
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’d say this only adds to the confusion.
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.
I’d say this only adds to the confusion.The the principle is sound: In the case of a necessity, a priest can confirm.
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.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.
I disagree. If you read the case, it's compelling. If one doesn't accept it, then one has to backtrack and also doubt Confessions and Matrimony as well.
Father cites Canon Law that indicates priests can administer in situtions of need, such as in mission territories, in danger of death, etc. And I don't even think it's required to have explicit jurisdiction from the Bishop ... just a necessity or need. Patristic testimony is that priests defer to bishops for Confirmation simply as a matter of respect/honor. It's a very solid case.
I think our confusion is only subjective because we have been long conditioned to believe that Bishops are necessary for Confirmation due to the fact that we have Trad bishops who travel the country administering Confirmations. So this association with Confirmation and bishops has been pounded into our heads by these practices. But it's altogether unnecessary when there's no convenient access to a bishop.
Father's argument is about as air-tight as any I've seen.
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.
That a priest can confirm without any delegation?
This is an important point that needs addressing, Lad's good points notwithstanding.
Fair points.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.
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.
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 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.So I believe that the Church has always taught that since bishops have the fullness of the priesthood, their power of confirming is automatically "unlocked", and they would only need jurisdiction to administer the sacrament licitly; On the other hand priests have that power of confirming but it is "locked" unless they have a special delegation to use it, such as in mission lands or if someone is in danger of death. I don't believe that priests have the power to ordain priests, I think that power is exclusively reserved to the bishops.
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 think you mean Fr Wathen, who did confirm people because, at the time, he was a member of the OSJ, whose order allowed priests to confirm. And, yes, he did so out of necessity and told everyone to get conditionally confirmed by a bishop, if possible.
I think you mean Fr Wathen, who did confirm people because, at the time, he was a member of the OSJ, whose order allowed priests to confirm. And, yes, he did so out of necessity and told everyone to get conditionally confirmed by a bishop, if possible.
Is not the fact that he urged the recipients of his confirmations to be subsequently conditionally confirmed proof that he considered them doubtful (ie., you cannot receive a conditional sacrament unless there is positive doubt regarding the validity of the first)?
So I believe that the Church has always taught that since bishops have the fullness of the priesthood, their power of confirming is automatically "unlocked", and they would only need jurisdiction to administer the sacrament licitly; On the other hand priests have that power of confirming but it is "locked" unless they have a special delegation to use it, such as in mission lands or if someone is in danger of death. I don't believe that priests have the power to ordain priests, I think that power is exclusively reserved to the bishops.
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)?
This delegation is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. If a priest tried to confirm without delegation or outside the limits of his delegation, there would be no valid sacrament.
The distinction with the sacrament of penance is that the priest is, by his priestly character, metaphysically ordained to give such an absolution. The jurisdiction does not give him the power to hear confessions, but rather it gives him a subject on which to exercise that power (see L'Église du Verbe Incarné by Journet). But a simple priest with no delegation does not have the power to confirm whatsoever (as confirmed by chap. 4 of Sess. 23 of the Council of Trent). The priest, in himself, has no power to confirm. So there is no foundation for any supplying of power here.
I agree with Fr. Belmont. The ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the Bishop, and that any Bishop can always administer this Sacrament validly. The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is the priest delegated by the Sovereign Pontiff. This delegation is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. If a priest tried to confirm without delegation or outside the limits of his delegation, there would be no valid sacrament.
Precisely my question:
Is the delegation essential to validity?
It would seem so.
No. What part of situation of necessity is not understood here? It's also required to have jurisdiction for the validity of Confession. So if you claim there's no state of necessity here, then you should prepare to make a good general confession to a priest who actually has jurisdiction.
Fair points.It's not really just emerging, in the late 60s / 70s and some into the 80s, trad priests were called upon and did many confirmations, this is because back then, there literally were no bishops *at all* who would do them nor could they be counted on to do them the right way.
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.
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 just saw this after posting, but yes, Fr. Bitzer was not alone, there were plenty of other priests did the same.
Necessity may supply a bishop with jurisdiction to confer a delegation, but how can the delegation be skipped altogether?
That’s like saying necessity gives independent priests authority to elect a pope.
It's very simple. Either the priest's Order include the power to confirm or they do not. We know that they do because otherwise no amount of jurisdiction of delegation could supply for the lack of power. So what's lacking, jurisdiction/delegation, comes extrinsic to the power of Orders, and all such intrinsic considerations can be supplied in cases of necessity.
Exact same situation applies to Confessions. Priest have the power of Orders to absolve from sins, but priest do not VALIDLY absolve unless they have jurisdiction (and are designated, i.e. receive their "faculties").
But is the delegation a power or a faculty?Ask the priest what the value is of the delegation from a bishop who possesses no jurisdiction.
That is to say, is it the activation of some latent power derived from priestly ordination, or, is it an administrative grant of authority?
Meanwhile, a Resistance priest emails me saying such confirmations are probably invalid (but he gives no explanation why).
Again, just troubleshooting all this; I've never given thought to the possibility of a priest confirming without any delegation, so now I'm wondering about the nature of the delegation in se.
One of the priests aligned with Fr. Hewko ...
Can't eastern rite priests perform confirmations without a bishop
Are you saying the Eastern Rite priests perform their confirmations without a delegation from their bishop?No that's why I'm asking how do they do it
No that's why I'm asking how do they do it
Are you saying the Eastern Rite priests perform their confirmations without a delegation from their bishop?Eastern rite priests confer confirmation, which they call "chrismation," immediately following the conferral of baptism. This is the normal course of events. There is no permission.
Precisely my question:I agree with you. I think it very, very much is.
Is the delegation essential to validity?
It would seem so.
Nonsense.
One thing I do know about the Eastern rites is that when a priest is incardinated, he receives an "antimensium" (i.e., a "Greek Corporal"), which is very different from the Latin Rite version:(https://i.imgur.com/dRY823G.png)
Aside from ornate pictures and colors, it is consecrated (not blessed) by the bishop, and contains the signature of his bishop, and is the priest's proof of having received jurisdiction from him to perform sacramental acts.
I'm wondering whether, therefore, this is tantamount or equivalent to a tacit delegation to perform confirmations (and therefore, this authority, rather than anything emanating from the priestly character/orders, is what validates their confirmations)?
Conversely, if that much were true, then the lack of delegation in the Latin rite would be invalidating.
Again, just thinking out loud here, not declaring a position.
One thing I do know about the Eastern rites is that when a priest is incardinated, he receives an "antimensium" (i.e., a "Greek Corporal"), which is very different from the Latin Rite version (which is merely blessed):
Aside from ornate pictures and colors (vs the plain white Latin rite variety), it is consecrated (not blessed) by the bishop, and contains the signature of his bishop, and is the priest's proof of having received jurisdiction from him to perform sacramental acts.
I'm wondering whether, therefore, this is tantamount or equivalent to a tacit delegation to perform confirmations (and therefore, this authority, rather than anything emanating from the priestly character/orders, is what validates their confirmations)?
[Can an Eastern Rite priest without a legit antimensium validly confirm?]
Conversely, if that much were true, then the lack of delegation in the Latin rite would be invalidating.
Again, just thinking out loud here, not declaring a position.
Based on the quote by Prummer just posted by frankielogue about Oriental priests having received a tacit delegation to confirm, it seems they do so validly not in virtue of their holy orders, but in virtue of the tacit delegation.I think that everything from Prümmer and Hugon definitively close the book on this conversation.
At this point in the cconversation, it seems the delegation is therefore essential to validity.
I think that everything from Prümmer and Hugon definitively close the book on this conversation.
Well, I’d say that between Emile and frankielogue’s posts, it’s nearly certain Fr. Arrizaga does not confirm validly.
Great topic!
Interesting points, citing Benedict XIV, in Fr. Woywod's article:
"...,it is certain that Confirmation given by a priest in virtue of delegation by a bishop is null and void."
"it is the consent of the Supreme Authority, tacit or explicit, that gives priests power to confirm."
https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1938-05_38_8/page/846/mode/1up
I think that everything from Prümmer and Hugon definitively close the book on this conversation.
Well, I’d say that between Emile and frankielogue’s posts, it’s nearly certain Fr. Arrizaga does not confirm validly.Ridiculous.
Absolute garbage. Then you do not receive valid absolution from Resistance priests. Period.
Nonsense.It is indeed nonsense. I have already explained the distinction between confirmation and the sacrament of penance. There remains nothing more to be said on this topic.
At this point in the conversation, it seems the delegation is therefore essential to validity.Except in a crisis situation, when there is no one with jurisdiction to actually delegate. You can't delegate unless you have jurisdiction. No one in Trad land has jurisdiction, so the delegation "requirement" is irrelevant.
If priests validly absolve due to the Church supplying jurisdiction during the middle of the Crisis, then he also can validly confirm. Whether this permission, jurisdiction, delegation comes from the Pope or from the Bishop (who ultimately also gets his authority from the pope) is absolutely irrelvant.Yes, it seems so.
The distinction between necessity supplying jurisdiction for valid confessions, but not supplying it in the matter of priestly confirmations seems to be this:Does this apply if there is no pope since b16 died?
According to Pohle-Preuss, not even necessity can validate a priestly confirmation without the delegation of the pope, for the reason which follows:
“In extraordinary cases simple priests can administer Confirmation, but only with special powers granted by the Pope. This Proposition may be technically qualified as "sententia certa.
Proof. Hugh of St. Victor, Durandus, and other Scholastic theologians deny the right of the Supreme Pontiff to grant the special power referred to; but there is now no longer any reason to doubt it. Thomists, Scotists, Bellarmine, Suarez and De Lugo, all regard Confirmation administered by simple priests with papal autority as valid. Our thesis cannot be demonstrated directly from Sacred Scripture and we therefore have to rely on Tradition... [here follows a proof from the Eastern Tradition]...
b) In the Latin Church Confirmation, as a rule, has always been administered by bishops, and only in exceptional cases by priests.
This practice, which is far more in conformity with the dogmatic teaching defined at Trent, gained the upper hand in the West afther the thirteenth centutry, when Baptism and Confirmation gradually became separated by constantly lengthening intervals of time. The administration of Confirmation by priests was and is comparatively rare, but cases have occurred in every century since the time of Gregory the Great, though always with express papal authorization and with chrism consecrated by bishops. Since the Council of Trent the Holy see has at various times granted the right to administer Confirmation to Jesuit missionaries, to the Custodian of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, the Provost of St. Hedwig's Church in Berlin and other priests.
c) It is not easy to justify this exceptional practice in view of the fact that the validity of Confirmation has nothing to do with the power of jurisdiction, but depends entirely on the character of ordination.
A deacon, for instance, could not validly administer this sacrament even with papal permission, whilst, on the other hand, a heretical, schismatic, suspended or excommunicated bishop can do so even against the express command of the Pope. How, then, is it possible for a simple priest to confirm validly, if the papal permit does not supply the lack of episcopal consecration?
Various attempts have been made to overcome this difficulty.
Some theologians have assumed that the papal delegation is not a mere extrinsic permission but implies an intrinsic perfectioning of the character of ordination by which the delegated priest receives the episcopal character. Others hold with Suarez that the papal authorization merely gives to the delegated priest a higher extrinsic dignity which, together with his sacredotal character, suffices to enable him to administer the Sacrament validly. Both hypotheses are unsatisfactory. A simpler and more effective solution is that devised by Gregory of Valentia. It was the will of Christ, he says, that both bishops and priests should be empowered to administer Confirmation, the former as ordinary ministers of the sacrament by virtue of the episcopal consecration the latter as its extraordinary ministers by virtue of the priesthood, leaving it to the pope to determine the manner of exercising this latent power."
Pohle, Joseph, Ph.D., D.D.. The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise. Trans. Preuss. 1917. Herder: St. Louis. Pp. 310-13
This is an issue I've done some research on (I sent the quotes to Sean, as I'm mostly just on mobile these days and didn't have time to format them correctly). The question of priestly confirmations is one on which all canonists and theologians are concurred: priests cannot validly confirm except and unless they have direct and explicit approval from the pope (including via indult). Priests cannot appeal to epikeia to validly confirm. I encourage people to read over the material Sean posted carefully. It is abundantly clear, even if it is disappointing.
In other words, it is a supplied jurisdiction which gives the priest the ability to validly absolve in necessity, but it is not a supplied jurisdiction which endows a priest to confirm validly..
What allows a priest to confirm validly in necessity (i.e., as the extraordinary minister) is an express grant from the pope to exercise a particular power of Order (which is otherwise inaccessible).
This has nothing to do with ecclesiastical laws, jurisdiction, etc.
The distinction between necessity supplying jurisdiction for valid confessions, but not supplying it in the matter of priestly confirmations seems to be this:
According to Pohle-Preuss, not even necessity can validate a priestly confirmation without the delegation of the pope, for the reason which follows:
“In extraordinary cases simple priests can administer Confirmation, but only with special powers granted by the Pope. This Proposition may be technically qualified as "sententia certa.
Proof. Hugh of St. Victor, Durandus, and other Scholastic theologians deny the right of the Supreme Pontiff to grant the special power referred to; but there is now no longer any reason to doubt it. Thomists, Scotists, Bellarmine, Suarez and De Lugo, all regard Confirmation administered by simple priests with papal autority as valid. Our thesis cannot be demonstrated directly from Sacred Scripture and we therefore have to rely on Tradition... [here follows a proof from the Eastern Tradition]...
b) In the Latin Church Confirmation, as a rule, has always been administered by bishops, and only in exceptional cases by priests.
This practice, which is far more in conformity with the dogmatic teaching defined at Trent, gained the upper hand in the West afther the thirteenth centutry, when Baptism and Confirmation gradually became separated by constantly lengthening intervals of time. The administration of Confirmation by priests was and is comparatively rare, but cases have occurred in every century since the time of Gregory the Great, though always with express papal authorization and with chrism consecrated by bishops. Since the Council of Trent the Holy see has at various times granted the right to administer Confirmation to Jesuit missionaries, to the Custodian of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, the Provost of St. Hedwig's Church in Berlin and other priests.
c) It is not easy to justify this exceptional practice in view of the fact that the validity of Confirmation has nothing to do with the power of jurisdiction, but depends entirely on the character of ordination.
A deacon, for instance, could not validly administer this sacrament even with papal permission, whilst, on the other hand, a heretical, schismatic, suspended or excommunicated bishop can do so even against the express command of the Pope. How, then, is it possible for a simple priest to confirm validly, if the papal permit does not supply the lack of episcopal consecration?
Various attempts have been made to overcome this difficulty.
Some theologians have assumed that the papal delegation is not a mere extrinsic permission but implies an intrinsic perfectioning of the character of ordination by which the delegated priest receives the episcopal character. Others hold with Suarez that the papal authorization merely gives to the delegated priest a higher extrinsic dignity which, together with his sacredotal character, suffices to enable him to administer the Sacrament validly. Both hypotheses are unsatisfactory. A simpler and more effective solution is that devised by Gregory of Valentia. It was the will of Christ, he says, that both bishops and priests should be empowered to administer Confirmation, the former as ordinary ministers of the sacrament by virtue of the episcopal consecration the latter as its extraordinary ministers by virtue of the priesthood, leaving it to the pope to determine the manner of exercising this latent power."
Pohle, Joseph, Ph.D., D.D.. The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise. Trans. Preuss. 1917. Herder: St. Louis. Pp. 310-13
I agree that delegation seems to be necessary for a priest to validly bestow Confirmation.
Now, there are some traditional clergy who take the next step and conditionally confirm anyone who has been confirmed by priests in the Eastern Rite. But the Eastern Rite priests have the proper delegation, right?
There are many people in our area who were confirmed by an old Byzantine priest before he passed away. Some traditional clergy seem to have no doubt about it's validity but others seem to question it. That is why I ask this question.
Thank you for these quotes, Sean.
Although I appreciate some may say that there are no good bishops from whom to receive this sacrament (which I, being aligned with RCI/IMBC, would disagree with), all that remains to be said is: Fr. Arrizaga's confirmations are invalid.
I never knew there were some who doubted the validity of Eastern rite confirmations.I myself am confirmed through the Byzantine Rite but never really questioned it's validity. My family went to the Byzantine Liturgy for 2 years when I was 6-8 before going back to the novus ordo. During that time I received my First Holy Communion, First Confession and Confirmation all from the Byzantine Rite priest.
What is their reasoning?
The quotes above which were supplied to me by Mithrandylan contained an omitted historical discussion regarding confirmations in the Eastern rites (omitted because they were not directly relevant).
Now I am curious to read it.
Is the objection regarding Eastern rite priestly confirmation something along the lines of the papal delegation not being particular to specific priests (ie., they are saying a tacit, inherited delegation does not suffice)?
In lieu of doctrine, common sense tells me there should be no doubt, since centuries of popes haven’t seen the need to intervene/correct whatever the alleged problem is.
The credit should go to Mithrandylan: He is the one who had previously done all the research on the subject, and passed along his findings to me. Before I received his sources, my reservations were more instinctive than doctrinal.Thank you to all of you who gave good input here! 😇
I think we all owe him a debt of thanks for supplying the means by which to rebut the arguments supporting invalid priestly confirmations (which some may otherwise have been tempted to receive).
'Accordingly, the Supreme Pontiff does not add a new intrinsic power to the priestly character, but causes the priestly character to extend itself to some act which itself can be performed by a superior power; just as the ear, while listening through the telephone, does not receive a new species of power or act, but extends itself to the object which itself had to be presented and adapted with the help of the instrument.'Pius XII's papal indult isn't a delegation? Of course it is.
Hugon also concludes that delegation IS necessary.
According to Pohle-Preuss, not even necessity can validate a priestly confirmation without the delegation of the pope,Such a delegation exists...
Where such a situation still obtains, that is, where the priest in question is parish priest in all but name, the new power of administering confirmation will be enjoyed by the priest in charge.Trad priests effectively act as parish priests because parishes/lawful authority don't exist anymore. Trad priests are parish priests "in all but name" in a practical sense.
"The extraordinary minister [of confirmation] is a priest who, either by the common law or by special indult of the Apostolic See, has received the faculty to confirm. The following have this faculty by law: Cardinals (Canon 239/1.23), abbots and prelates nullius, vicars and prefects Apostolic. With the exception of the Cardinals, these clergy cannot validly make use of the faculty except within the limits of their respective territory, and during their term of office only.Here again is a mention of an indult, which exists.
[...]
Persons who have by law the power to confirm cannot delegate that power to a priest, for as we saw above, the Code does not grant bishops the faculty to delegate a priest to give Confirmation, and besides there is no question here of delegating jurisdiction but rather a power of orders. No power of orders delegated to a person or annexed to an office can be committed to another, unless this is expressly permitted by law or by indult (Canon 210). When necessary, the Holy See grants bishops and others (vicars and prefects Apostolic) the faculty to delegate a priest for the conferring of Confirmation (emphasis added)."Again, "unless permitted by law or indult". Or "when necessary".
Trad priests effectively act as parish priests because parishes/lawful authority don't exist anymore. Trad priests are parish priests "in all but name" in a practical sense..
Horrible analogy. No indult can allow a layman to say mass. But it can allow a priest to confirm. A priest has the power to confirm, he just needs permission..
Secondly, I’d argue it’s a greater sin to consecrate bishops/ordain priests without papal approval than for a priest to confirm without permission yet no one bats an eye at the former. While the latter is somehow viewed as some line which can never be crossed. Seems totally hypocritical..
Regarding Eastern priests: they do have the power to confirm. This is attested to consistently in the theological literature. I am unaware of the specific details, other than what the theologians say: that this has always been the case in the east by virtue of ancient papal approval. I would not be concerned about priestly confirmations at the hands of an Eastern priests except if there was a question about their orders (case by case; but in general I am under the impression priests of eastern Churches have not had their rites of orders corrupted) or about the matter of the sacrament (e.g. using an invalid oil type, or using oils from an invalidly consecrated Bishop).This is the priest who confirmed us back in 1998:
The argument is that there is no way for a priest to validly confirm because he lacks the requisite power of order.No. A subdeacon lacks power of orders to hear confession. No amount of papal permission can give a subdeacon the power to forgive sins. But a priest has the power to confirm, if he’s given permission. Big, big difference.
Archbishop Lefebvre started doing this by approving it on the 1 May 1980.Frankielogue, the link you provided doesn't work for me "internal server error".
Then Fr. Guérard des Lauriers OP included an article by Fr. Hervé Belmont against it here: https://liguesaintamedee.ch/doc/Cahiers_de_Cassiciacuм_6.pdf
I agree with Fr. Belmont. The ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the Bishop, and that any Bishop can always administer this Sacrament validly. The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is the priest delegated by the Sovereign Pontiff. This delegation is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. If a priest tried to confirm without delegation or outside the limits of his delegation, there would be no valid sacrament.
The distinction with the sacrament of penance is that the priest is, by his priestly character, metaphysically ordained to give such an absolution. The jurisdiction does not give him the power to hear confessions, but rather it gives him a subject on which to exercise that power (see L'Église du Verbe Incarné by Journet). But a simple priest with no delegation does not have the power to confirm whatsoever (as confirmed by chap. 4 of Sess. 23 of the Council of Trent). The priest, in himself, has no power to confirm. So there is no foundation for any supplying of power here.
No. A subdeacon lacks power of orders to hear confession. No amount of papal permission can give a subdeacon the power to forgive sins. But a priest has the power to confirm, if he’s given permission. Big, big difference..
If the priest lacked power of orders to confirm, then no permission, even papal, would make up for the deficit. But since permission can allow the priest to act, then that means he always had the power.
All the theologians say that priests confirm invalidly because they lack the necessary power of order except/unless the pope approves.No. According the below quote, which was posted a few pages ago, priests DO NOT LACK any intrinsic power to confirm; they only lack permission/authority to use such a power.
Quote from Fr Raphael:
A situation which “unlocks” a priest’s ability to perform a confirmation is a specific case. A similar case is that of Arch. Lefebvre when he did consecrated bishops back in 1988. He needed permission from the Pope so as to his power to be unlocked in order to consecrate bishops. He invoked the highest Law (Salus animarum) in order to be unlocked and then perform such as act which he called: “survival operation”.
This is an error, I believe. Archbishop Lefebvre needed papal approval not for the validity of his episcopal consecrations, but only for liceity. With priestly confirmations, there is the added issue of papal approval required for the very validity of the sacrament.
No. According the below quote, which was posted a few pages ago, priests DO NOT LACK any intrinsic power to confirm; they only lack permission/authority to use such a power..
'Accordingly, the Supreme Pontiff does not add a new intrinsic power to the priestly character, but causes the priestly character to extend itself to some act which itself can be performed by a superior power; just as the ear, while listening through the telephone, does not receive a new species of power or act, but extends itself to the object which itself had to be presented and adapted with the help of the instrument.'
Correct:I am not convinced of this.
With episcopal consecration, no increase in the power of order is required (ie., a bishop already possesses the plenitude of the priesthood).
Conversely, in extraordinary priestly confirmation, it appears that the pope must increase/elevate, in specifica, the power of priestly order.
If the pope doesn’t do this, no amount of need, or appeal to “lex prima salus animarum,” suffices:
Such considerations might supply for jurisdiction, but not for orders.
Fr. Arrizaga says:.
“According to Canon Law 1917 (CIC 781-1, CIC 782-2), The Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation is every priest who is authorized by special indult coming from the Holy See, or also as a general right when it is for the salvation of souls (Salus animarum).“
The latter, bolded portion of this quote is not included in the canons, and Fr. Arrizaga does not cite or support this assertion, which, in light of all the foregoing, seems to me to be critical to the defense of his argument.
Can Fr. Arrizaga please support this claim?
If not, it is to be dismissed.
You're quoting a theologian who agrees (with all the others) that priests confirm invalidly without papal approval due to a deficiency in order. He is offering his opinion on a debated issue, which is the exact reason priests cannot exercise this power without papal approval.You originally said priests don't have necessary "power of orders", which is untrue. Now you're agreeing with me that the issue is one of permission/discipline, which jives with the early Church history of priests originally confirming, then stepping aside out of respect, which then morphed into Church norms/laws.
or also as a general right when it is for the salvation of souls (Salus animarum).“"The salvation of souls is the highest law" is the backbone principle of canon law. You didn't learn this in seminary?
The latter, bolded portion of this quote is not included in the canons,
Conversely, in extraordinary priestly confirmation, it appears that the pope must increase/elevate, in specifica, the power of priestly order.A papal indult exists for "danger of death". Canon Law's very foundation has numerous exceptions for "danger of death". The current times, the elites are actively trying to kill us, whether by jabs, ww3, poisons in the food, destruction of farms, etc. So, yes, the "danger of death" is all around us. Persecution is just around the corner. People need to be confirmed to withstand the attack.
If the pope doesn’t do this, no amount of need, or appeal to “lex prima salus animarum,” suffices:
It would seem, therefore, that this is not of Divine Law, but ecclesiastical law. And it is indeed through the law that the Church, the Holy See, grants this indult, so why would this law not be subject to the highest law of the Church in this time of crisis?Exactly.
You originally said priests don't have necessary "power of orders", which is untrue. Now you're agreeing with me that the issue is one of permission/discipline, which jives with the early Church history of priests originally confirming, then stepping aside out of respect, which then morphed into Church norms/laws..
In other words, the reason priests can't confirm is purely due to Church rules, of which delegation is one of them. This was my original argument.
You don’t seem to understand that St. Thomas teaches that laws are for normal times, and we are not in normal times. We are in a state of grave spiritual necessity, which dispenses from the law (St. Thomas again), and in which normal jurisdictional considerations do not apply, precisely because jurisdiction is made for souls, and not souls for jurisdiction.
A papal indult exists for "danger of death". Canon Law's very foundation has numerous exceptions for "danger of death". The current times, the elites are actively trying to kill us, whether by jabs, ww3, poisons in the food, destruction of farms, etc. So, yes, the "danger of death" is all around us. Persecution is just around the corner. People need to be confirmed to withstand the attack..
Sean, i'm re-posting your post from the SSPX thread, because it applies to this topic 100%.
Sean, i'm re-posting your post from the SSPX thread, because it applies to this topic 100%..
'Accordingly, the Supreme Pontiff does not add a new intrinsic power to the priestly character, but causes the priestly character to extend itself to some act which itself can be performed by a superior power; just as the ear, while listening through the telephone, does not receive a new species of power or act, but extends itself to the object which itself had to be presented and adapted with the help of the instrument.'What do you think the 2 highlighted phrases mean? Hint: Priest's do not have a defect of order.
.Is it not true to say that the Pope supplies this power through the law? This mysterious power, which is not well understood and is not universally agreed upon by theologians and canonists. But it is governed by law is it not? The law is for souls. If the law would harm souls, there are provisions in place for the interpretation of the law. And of course, there is the highest law, the salvation of souls, which admits of no exceptions. Is there a problem with my logic? The priest can confirm. All that is wanting is the fiat from the supreme legislator. This comes from the law does it not?
It doesn't apply because it deals with jurisdiction, which is much easier to supply for than orders. Priestly confirmation requires the pope to supply for orders, not jurisdiction.
Do you guys even understand the quotes you post? Let's post it again and highlight the words you're not understanding:.
What do you think the 2 highlighted phrases mean? Hint: Priest's do not have a defect of order.
All of this is a matter of permission, jurisdiction, authority (i.e. human church law) and not of Divine/sacramental defects. And Church history, which Fr Raphael quoted, proves such.
I myself am confirmed through the Byzantine Rite but never really questioned it's validity. My family went to the Byzantine Liturgy for 2 years when I was 6-8 before going back to the novus ordo. During that time I received my First Holy Communion, First Confession and Confirmation all from the Byzantine Rite priest.
Recently I have met some traditional people who told me that Bishop Sanborn (I think?..don't quote me on that) and several other sede priests they correspond with say that conditional Confirmation is necessary when someone has been Confirmed through the Eastern Rite. I brushed it off but this thread made me think of it again.
Bishops definitely are the norm in the Latin Rite, but priests often bestow Confirmation in the Eastern Rite even from hundreds of years ago I believe? If it wasn't for the fact that my confirmation was through the Eastern Rite I probably wouldn't even think about these questions.
The theologian you're quoting thinks priestly confirmations are invalid because without papal approval priests don't have (or given his explanation, don't have access to) the requisite power of order.I'm aware of this. I'm also aware that the 2 phrases "don't have" and "don't have access to" are COMPLETELY different.
Hello. The reasoning is that, although priests in the Eastern Rites do have the power to confirm conceded to them by law, this pertains to Eastern countries. Bishop Sanborn told me that he never could find out if this same power was conceded to them when they were functioning elsewhere, so he prefers to re-administer them sub conditione. That is as far as I am aware. Please, feel free to PM me for the Bishop's contact details and I can put you in touch.Interesting... 🤔
I'm aware of this. I'm also aware that the 2 phrases "don't have" and "don't have access to" are COMPLETELY different..
a. "Dont have" = no ability to have on your own, with permission or without. (defect or order)
b. "Dont have access to" = you have the ability, but you just need access. (defect of permission)
This is all a matter of permission, law, jurisdiction/delegation. The priest HAS THE POWER to confirm, he just needs ACCESS/PERMISSION to use such a power.
they all say the priest acts invalidly if he confirms without express papal approval-- not because without such approval he is without jurisdiction, but because without such a approval he cannot make use of the power required.I agree. But the priest still has the requisite power to confirm (due to priestly ordination), in theory. This is the important principle which you've sometimes agreed with and sometimes denied.
I agree. But the priest still has the requisite power to confirm (due to priestly ordination), in theory. This is the important principle which you've sometimes agreed with and sometimes denied..
At the end of the day, unless a priest is sent to confirm by the pope then the priest confirms invalidly because he does not confirm with the requisite power of order.Yes, but how does the Pope "send" the priest to confirm?
Yes, but how does the Pope "send" the priest to confirm?.
"The priest cannot validly administer the Sacrament of Confirmation unless he is authorised by LAW or by special indult of the Holy See" - Woywod.
It seems clear to me that this is a LAW of the Church. It has not always been so, as explained by Fr Woywod: in the early Church, the bishops delegated priests to validly confirm. Then there is the custom of the Eastern Church which was TACITLY approved after explanations from the Greeks as to why they allowed priests to confirm were accepted at the Council of Florence in 1459 (they had already been observing this practice from the 5th Century). The precise date when the law was CHANGED for the Latin Church seems to be uncertain.
This current LAW of the Church gives power to certain priests to validly confirm in certain situations.
As an ecclesiastical law, rather than a Divine Law, it is clearly reformable (as has already occurred) and is governed by the higher principles of the law. The lower principles give way to the higher.
Canon 81 (CIC 1917) could also be used to argue the case: "Ordinaries below the Roman Pontiff cannot dispense from the general laws of the Church... unless recourse to the Holy See is difficult and there is also grave danger of harm in delay and the dispensation concerns a matter from which the Apostolic See is wont to dispense". Obviously, recourse to the Holy See is morally impossible in this crisis, there would seem to be grave danger of harm to the Church if souls were not able to be confirmed, and the Apostolic See has already dispensed from this law for the greater part of the Church in the East..
I would appreciate if anyone can show flaws in this argumentation. I am just trying to make sense of this issue like everyone else, but I just do not see how, as an ecclesiastical law that has been applied differently in various parts of the Church at different times, how it does not come under the supreme law of the Church..
That law gave ABL the permission to consecrate licitly without papal mandate. The same law, it seems to me, would give a priest, in certain circuмstances, the power to confirm validly. The law, after all, comes from the Pope. As Pope, he wants it to be applied not for the destruction of the Church, but for its edification..
I am not for one minute suggesting this would apply to Fr Arrizaga. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to Father to reconcile with the bishops from whom he should never have separated, then this apparent need for priestly confirmation would vanish in this case. It would take a great act of humility, no doubt, which would bring God's grace down upon himself and his flock. It would not in any way require a compromise of Catholic principles, and it would in no way endanger his Faith or that of his flock, quite the contrary. I will pray for this intention..
.Thanks, Mith, for the reply.
Yes to all.
.
This canon regards dispensing from laws. It is inapplicable and irrelevant to the indult in question, since there is no question of dispensing anyone from anything.
.
.
Honestly I'm not sure I follow the argument. Is it that 1) the pope's current law regarding priestly confirmation can change, 2) Bishops can dispense with laws in necessity, therefore... what, exactly? Therefore traditional priests have the power to confirm? That certainly doesn't follow, certainly not as formatted.
.
I don't actually think that law justifies +ABL's consecrations; it's a law that says bishops can dispense with the observance of their subject's laws. Bishops don't dispense themselves. +ABL certainly couldn't dispense himself of the papal mandate. Likewise, no bishop can dispense with the papal indult empowering priests to confirm (the very notion is non-sensical; it isn't a law susceptible to dispensation in the first place).
.
I understand. You are wondering what the limits of epikeia are. I assure you, we have reached them on this issue if on no other.
What is the penalty for confirming without papal permission? I doubt excommunication, for such an act hardly seems as serious as consecrating bishops independently.Canon 2365 (1917) - A presbyter who does not have, either by law or by concession of the Roman Pontiff, faculty to administer the sacrament of confirmation but who dares to administer it is suspended; but if he presumes to exceed the limited faculties made for him, he is considered by that fact to be deprived of that faculty.
+ABL disobeyed the pope and consecrated bishops for 2 main reasons - a) the continuation of the Church, and b) to save souls. The penalty for such disobedience, in normal circuмstances, is excommunication and the grave sin of schism. What canon law did he appeal to? Nothing in particular (that I am aware of); he simply appealed to the 'emergency canons' and to the 'highest law' of saving souls..
What canon law does +Sanborn appeal to when setting up seminaries and ordaining priests and consecrating bishops? What canon law does the SSPV appeal to when rejecting the 1955 Holy Week, issued by a valid pope? And yet most Trads accept these actions as necessary and using common sense (based on the crisis).
What is the penalty for confirming without papal permission? I doubt excommunication, for such an act hardly seems as serious as consecrating bishops independently. But even if the penalty were excommunication, is not the purpose the same as +ABL's or +McKenna's or +Thuc's or +Sanborns? It's not like Trad land is filled with Bishops and confirmations are easy to get. They are NOT. The purpose of Fr Arrizaga's actions, as I see them, are the same as +ABL's - a) continuation of the Church, through the laity's holiness and b) to save souls.
I have no idea who Fr Arrizaga is, i've never heard of him until this thread but his actions seem rational, since we are truly living in emergency times (and it's not getting better). I can't understand why many of you are arguing for the "letter of the law" in this situation? It's the "spirit of the law" which matters here. Church law was made to help sanctity, not hinder it. The emergency canons exist for a reason.
Thanks, Mith, for the reply..
1. The law states which priests can confirm and under what circuмstances. I'm suggesting that the dispensing laws can dispense from the restrictions placed on which priests can confirm and the circuмstances under which they can confirm. Perhaps I misunderstand the canonical principles on this issue.
2. My argument is that the Papal Indult required for priests to confirm is a Church Law, not a Divine Law, therefore it can change as it has in the past. The Pope grants this indult to priests through the Law. The Church would not have the Law interpreted according to the letter when that would destroy the spirit and ultimate purpose of the law, which is summed up in the Supreme Law, the salvation of souls..
3. In relation to ABL, I was referring to Suprema Lex Salus Animarum justifying the Consecrations, as it might also justify priestly confirmations, not Canon 81, sorry for the confusion. I'm not saying other laws are not also applicable, I was just jumping straight to the top! Sorry for the confusion..
.Thanks for the detailed explanation, you make good points.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it applies in this case-- or at least, it only doubtfully applies, and we need to do better than that if sacramental validity is at stake.
.
Now, to my knowledge, there is no positive law restricting the power to confirm from priests. It seems that the power to confirm is latent and restricted from priests by divine law, and requires special intervention from the pope to remove this restriction. This, at least, is the explanation given by several theologians. It is not the only available explanation, but it seems the right one to me.
.
.
Well as a matter of fact I have produced a canon lawyer who say the indult doesn't even apply in cases where a de facto (but not de jure) parish priest needs to confirm a dying child (an explanation which jives most easily with the power to confirm being something restricted by divine law, rather than by ecclesiastical law). I think this speaks volumes. If the law does not even provide for the valid confirmation of a dying child by someone who much better meets the conditions set forth in the indult, why on earth would we suppose it provides for the valid confirmation of healthy children and adults by priests who meet those conditions even less? So, suppose that priests do have the active power to confirm by divine law and positive law has revoked that power (I don't think this is the case, but let's assume it is). We have proper evidence that the Church would still not sanction a "needs-based" exception. Who is more needy than a dying child, and who is more dignified and authorized than an acting parish priest?
.
Confirmation is a strengthening and perfecting of Grace, as opposed to baptism and confession which (re-)initiate one into the life of grace when the soul is dead. It is not of the same necessity as those other sacraments. In other words, I think we can make more sense of the situation by bearing this in mind. Going without confirmation isn't so much a question of spiritual harm, as it is a question of failing to spiritually perfect. That is, assuming they do not have access to a bishop (which is sometimes the case, but rarely is it always the case).
.
.
Thanks for clarifying. It is always important to be scrutinizing and cautious when making use of epikeia or reading intrinsic cessation into law. But the need for such scrutiny and caution is amplified when the laws in question deal with sacramental validity. The laws +ABL 'broke' were not invalidating laws, so even if his breaking of them were unjustified, we could still trust in the sacramental integrity of the priests and bishops he ordained and consecrated. No such analogy exists for confirmation. In fact, even with a "good reason" we know that priestly confirmations by priests who are not enumerated in the indult are invalid. In my mind, that settles the matter. The alternative is just shouting "for the salvation of souls" and blindly willing sacramental validity because it would be useful. Such a mode of conduct is definitely not Catholic.
.
Sean, I would like to know your opinion. How likely is it that some SSPX priests will join the Resistance or become independent after the consecration of the Bergoglio bishops?
I appreciate your candid feedback. It's hard to accept, but I understand. I can't understand how you can consecrate bishops without being in communion with Rome which tolerates the inconsistency. It's a series of paradoxes.
Father Rafael has never invoked the authority of a bishop for himself, but rather makes use, for the good and salvation of souls, of the power of ordination that was conferred upon him, given the serious need and absence of trustworthy bishops, or even bishops who are not concerned with constructing their own doctrine... I see that the sacrament is sentenced to death by internet scholars.Dear Thomaz:
Not all pre-conciliar canonist books are at hand, such as Capello, who defended the adage: "necessitas non obligator Lex", that is, we are in a serious state of necessity, a necessity not subject to the scruples of canonical laws, coined for situations of normality, given that no one is obliged to the impossible. In this context, the canonists refer to the right of necessity, generated as a result of the state of necessity. "Ecclesia Suplet".
Sincerely,
Thomaz Barbosa
Campos dos Goytacazes - RJ
Brazil
It is no doubt difficult for you with the translator, but very serious arguments have been presented above from theologians and canonists that make it doubtful, at best ...
Yes, I agree completely. Canon Law is intended to maintain the right order of the Church under NORMAL conditions. If a priest has the inherent power of Orders to do something, and is lacking only either jurisdiction or "delegation" (much ado has needlessly been made about this distinction but it's effectively the same thing, a permission normally required to validly exercise one of these inherent powers), if there's an abnormal situation any kind where the good of souls is at stake, then the Church most certainly supplies. Jurisdiction / permission all ultimately comes from Our Lord.
If these confirmations are not valid, then neither are absolutions given by Traditional priests (outside of the relatively-recent SSPX "jurisdiction") and Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and the four consecrands were legitimately excommunicated.
On the one hand, you’re contradicting your earlier (erroneous) statement that, so long as there’s one orthodox bishop in the area (eg., +Thomas Aquinas), nobody can avail themselves of a priest using supplied jurisdiction.
On the other hand, you’ve just ignored 5 pages of arguments distinguishing between papal delegation (which pertains to unlocking a power of order), and jurisdiction (which does not), thereby regressing the entire thread back to its starting point.
I never said that but was pointing out your own contradiction. If you hold to this, then if you have access to an SSPX priest you wouldn't be able to receive valid absolution from a Traditional priest without jurisdiction.
Correct. I'm absolutely ignoring it because it's utter nonsense. Statements from Canonists to that effect are all rooted in the normal law of the Church, which applies during normal conditions. During normal conditions, one cannot receive valid absolution from a priest without the necessary jurisdiction and faculties. During normal conditions, the Trad bishops who perform or receive consecrations without Papal Mandate are all excommunicated.
+ABL disobeyed the pope and consecrated bishops for 2 main reasons - a) the continuation of the Church, and b) to save souls. The penalty for such disobedience, in normal circuмstances, is excommunication and the grave sin of schism. What canon law did he appeal to? Nothing in particular (that I am aware of); he simply appealed to the 'emergency canons' and to the 'highest law' of saving souls.Dear Ladislau It is well seen in his comments that the friend desires the things of heaven. Making an interesting junction of the Laws of the Church with the Divine Laws. Bishop Fischer declared before the Papal court installed in England, that not even the Supreme Authority can legislate on the Supplement, which finds echo in his voice today. We need more Christians like you, interested more in the Glory of God than in the political interests of men (like the Pharisees). I pray Regina Cæli will reward you for the good you do. In union of prayers In Corde Iesu
What canon law does +Sanborn appeal to when setting up seminaries and ordaining priests and consecrating bishops? What canon law does the SSPV appeal to when rejecting the 1955 Holy Week, issued by a valid pope? And yet most Trads accept these actions as necessary and using common sense (based on the crisis).
What is the penalty for confirming without papal permission? I doubt excommunication, for such an act hardly seems as serious as consecrating bishops independently. But even if the penalty were excommunication, is not the purpose the same as +ABL's or +McKenna's or +Thuc's or +Sanborns? It's not like Trad land is filled with Bishops and confirmations are easy to get. They are NOT. The purpose of Fr Arrizaga's actions, as I see them, are the same as +ABL's - a) continuation of the Church, through the laity's holiness and b) to save souls.
I have no idea who Fr Arrizaga is, i've never heard of him until this thread but his actions seem rational, since we are truly living in emergency times (and it's not getting better). I can't understand why many of you are arguing for the "letter of the law" in this situation? It's the "spirit of the law" which matters here. Church law was made to help sanctity, not hinder it. The emergency canons exist for a reason.
I appreciate your candid feedback. It's hard to accept, but I understand. I can't understand how you can consecrate bishops without being in communion with Rome which tolerates the inconsistency. It's a series of paradoxes.Let's not forget that the Modernists in new-rome, who worship satan, are agents of chaos. First and foremost, that is what they want to sow in the Church - division, confusion, contradiction - which is what the V2 docuмents are full of. So new-rome's approach and handling of the new-sspx fits this mold very well.
Statements from Canonists to that effect are all rooted in the normal law of the Church, which applies during normal conditions.Had canon law been around when St Athanasius was alive, people would have told him to stay in his Arian diocese, "pray to God and wait for His help". And Arianism would've conquered the Church.
Canon 2365 (1917) - A presbyter who does not have, either by law or by concession of the Roman Pontiff, faculty to administer the sacrament of confirmation but who dares to administer it is suspended; but if he presumes to exceed the limited faculties made for him, he is considered by that fact to be deprived of that faculty.If a priest confirms without permission, he's suspended. But this canon doesn't deny he has the faculty (i.e. inherent power) to do so, nor does it say such are invalid.
1. You have an extremely trustworthy bishop at your very doorstep: Bishop Tomas D'Aquino at Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, Nova Friburgo.You presume much in your criticisms. You presume +Tomas would work with them. You presume +Tomas has time to travel and spend days confirming people, on a consistent yearly basis. You presume Fr Arrizaga hasn't already asked +Tomas for help. You presume +Tomas doesn't have travel restrictions or other impediments. South America is majorly communist; almost every country is run by a marxist nutjob. We here in the US take for granted "free movement" still exists (and is affordable).
2. Fr Rafael and his followers, it would appear, are the ones who are sentencing to death Confirmation for their children by their frivolous rejection of such a trustworthy bishop and faithful son of Bishop de Castro Mayer. Do what you must to make peace with this good bishop, and your problem will be solved.
You presume much in your criticisms. You presume +Tomas would work with them. You presume +Tomas has time to travel and spend days confirming people, on a consistent yearly basis. You presume Fr Arrizaga hasn't already asked +Tomas for help. You presume +Tomas doesn't have travel restrictions or other impediments. South America is majorly communist; almost every country is run by a marxist nutjob. We here in the US take for granted "free movement" still exists (and is affordable).And it still presume that I don't know and never worked with Dom Thomas. And where did you get that I need to make peace with Dom Thomas? We were never enemies!
Had canon law been around when St Athanasius was alive, people would have told him to stay in his Arian diocese, "pray to God and wait for His help". And Arianism would've conquered the Church.Starting from this line of thought, should we follow canon law and the pope's orders to join the CVII and repudiate the position of Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer?
The opinion of the Canon Lawyer that an acting parish priest could not validly confirm even a dying child certainly needs a better explanation than I can give if we are to argue along the lines of epikeia. Who is that Canon Lawyer, do we know?.
[Question:] Some clarification of the following point in connection with the recent decree on Confirmation would be much appreciated. The decree says that the new confirming power is enjoyed by all priests who are in exclusive charge of a distinct district with a church of its own and who are appointed to this charge in a stable manner. What I wish to know is whether a curate who is in charge of a part of a parish, would qualify for the power under this paragraph? In this parish I have been appointed as curate and the appointment is is likely to last for a number of years. I have charge of clearly- demarcated part of a parish which has a church of its own, distinct from the main parochial church. This church has its own baptismal font; the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in it. I am in residence beside it and for the people living in this district this is the church which they attend for all religious ceremonies and I exercise all parochial functions in their regard (the parish priest has given me full faculties for marriages). Of course I do not say a separate missa pro populo. Have I the new confirming power within the territorial limits of my district? -- Curate.
[Answer:] The answer to 'Curate's' enquiry is that he has not the new powers of administering confirmation. The paragraph in the new decree to which he refers contemplates an entirely different situation to the familiar phenomenon of a curate who is left in charge of part of a parish by the parish priest.
Perhaps the easiest way to underline the differences between the two positions is to point out that the paragraph in the decree deals only with priests who have the exclusivecare of souls in a particular territory. Now 'Curate'-- and others in the same position-- have not exclusive power. It may be that de facto the parish priest does not interfere in the care of souls in the district in any way; but the fact remains that he has the right to do so if he chooses, that is is parish priest for the entire territory of the parish, including the district of which the curate has charge, and that the authority of the curate is entirely subordinate to that of the parish priest-- and, in fact, is partly delegated by him. In no sense, therefore, can the curate be said to have the exclusive care of souls in his district. Whatever his position de facto, de iure he is not independent.
The situation which the paragraph contemplates is a piece of territory in a diocese which does not belong to any parish whatsoever, but which has a church of its own with a duly appointed priest, with all the rights and duties of a parish priest. Many territorial units in England and Wales, which had not been canonically erected as parishes, were formerly of this kind. the priest in charge, or 'rector,' was, however, immediately subject to the bishop of the diocese-- his authority was not subordinate to that of a parish priest for the simple reason that his territory did not form part of any parish. He had all the rights and duties of a parish priest including, as was decided in a case which came before the Sacred Congregation of the Council in 1932, the obligation of the Missa pro populo. Where such a situation still obtains, that is, where the priest in question is parish priest in all but name, the new power of administering confirmation will be enjoyed by the priest in charge.
[question] After the death of the parish priest and until the next parish priest is appointed, may the curate in charge of the parish confirm dying children? May the bishop empower him to do so? --P.P.
[Answer] The answer to this question is that the priest who has been given charge of a vacant parish by the local ordinary has the power to administer confirmation in danger of death, from the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera.
To appreciate the precise legal position on this point it is necessary to recall the dispositions of the Code for the charge of a parish during an interregnum. The Code says that 'an acting parish priest', called the vicarious oeconomus, should be appointed as soon as possible by the local ordinary. Pending the appointment of this vicarious oeconomus,however, the charge of the parish devolves, in the virtue of canon 472, on the senior curate or on the nearest parish priest. Now, the important point is that it is only the vicarious oeconomus appointed by the local Ordinary, who has the power of confirming-- the priest who has charge of the parish, in virtue of canon 472, pending the appointment of vicarious oeconomus has not the power. It may seem strange that it should be so, but there is little room for doubt on this point; the decree speaks only of the vicarious oeconomus and the Code makes it quite clear that the senior curate, who gets his power from canon 472 immediately the parish priest dies, is not a vicarious oeconomus. The commentators on the decree generally agree that unless and until the is appointed vicarious oeconomus he has not the power of confirming. Of course, it is very often the senior curate who is appointed vicarious oeconomus so that he will normally have charge of the parish for the complete interregnum, first from canon 472 and then in virtue of his appointment as vicarious oeconomus by the local Ordinary. But it is only after he has been appointed to this office that he has the power of confirming.
Conway, William. D.D., D.C.L.. Problems in Canon Law: Classified Replies to Practical Questions. 1956. Brown and Nolan Ltd.: Dublin. Pp 152-54
Had canon law been around when St Athanasius was alive, people would have told him to stay in his Arian diocese, "pray to God and wait for His help". And Arianism would've conquered the Church.Good point. So how far does this go? How far can the Trad bishops and priests go? Because it sure does seem that the Trad bishops and priests do act as if they are the official hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church.
If a priest confirms without permission, he's suspended. But this canon doesn't deny he has the faculty (i.e. inherent power) to do so, nor does it say such are invalid.
But Trad bishops/priests can set up seminaries, consecrate other bishops, ordain priests, set up schools, etc (all of which are excommunicable offenses and none of which are allowed by canon law) and the response is..."Oh, no problem. It was necessary; God understands."
But a priest decides to confirm because 1,000s of catholics each year (or over a period of multiple years) can't get confirmation and the response is, "Oh my gracious! This is such a SCANDAL. Horrible, no good priest!"
The contradiction is amazing.
If a priest confirms without permission, he's suspended. But this canon doesn't deny he has the faculty (i.e. inherent power) to do so, nor does it say such are invalid..
But Trad bishops/priests can set up seminaries, consecrate other bishops, ordain priests, set up schools, etc (all of which are excommunicable offenses and none of which are allowed by canon law) and the response is..."Oh, no problem. It was necessary; God understands.".
But a priest decides to confirm because 1,000s of catholics each year (or over a period of multiple years) can't get confirmation and the response is, "Oh my gracious! This is such a SCANDAL. Horrible, no good priest!"
The contradiction is amazing.
I want to thank Fr. Raphael for kindly laying out his thoughts and also Fr. Sretenovic for relaying the message.As usual, the holy oil is consecrated by the Bishop, in the case of Fr Raphael.
I am curious if Fr. Raphael, or any other Priests who are administering Confirmation and care to answer, is using chrism blessed by a Bishop or blessed by himself?
As usual, the holy oil is consecrated by the Bishop, in the case of Fr Raphael.
Just FYI, not knowing any local traditionalist canonists, I wrote an email on this subject to a conservative Cardinal I once met..
He's a conciliarist, but as he's also a canon lawyer, perhaps he will offer something useful (or not).
If he responds, I will post his reply.
.
I believe the 1983 code has a very liberalized approach to priestly confirmations. Those who accept its authority (I personally do not) can likely appeal to it with ease to validate priestly confirmations.
Not a trad, but Pete Vere has an account here. :popcorn:Can't find his email address online. Anyone?
You presume much in your criticisms. You presume +Tomas would work with them. You presume +Tomas has time to travel and spend days confirming people, on a consistent yearly basis. You presume Fr Arrizaga hasn't already asked +Tomas for help. You presume +Tomas doesn't have travel restrictions or other impediments. South America is majorly communist; almost every country is run by a marxist nutjob. We here in the US take for granted "free movement" still exists (and is affordable).You, Pax Vobis, who stated "I have no idea who Fr Arrizaga is, I've never heard of him until this thread" are presuming that I suffer from the same ignorance. A bishop is required by Canon Law to provide Confirmation at least every five years.
Had canon law been around when St Athanasius was alive, people would have told him to stay in his Arian diocese, "pray to God and wait for His help". And Arianism would've conquered the Church.Only ignorant Arians would have said such a thing, just like the Modernists of our day did to Archbishop Lefebvre.
And it still presume that I don't know and never worked with Dom Thomas. And where did you get that I need to make peace with Dom Thomas? We were never enemies!I presume nothing.
I know Dom Tomas since i was a child!
.Very good, thanks Mith!
Yes, the canonist is William Conway. The book is Problems in Canon Law and it was published in the mid-50s. It is a slim volume but a favorite of mine. Unlike the usual canon law commentaries which more or less all summarize the law, Fr. Conway's book is a compendium of actual letters he received from priests asking canonical questions about truly complicated matters. Here are the relevant questions and answers asked of him regrding Pius XII's indult:
I concede that this is *not infallible, and perhaps a different case may be made for necessity involving a large part of the Church, not of dying faithful, but living, in perilous times when the grace of the Sacrament is needed more than ever, not just for individual souls, but for the battle the Church must wage on Earth against the forces of antichrist. But I don't see how it could be considered anything more than a thesis. There would surely remain doubt, unless more evidence is forthcoming.*Not infallible, but not to be dismissed lightly, as in "nonsense", "utter garbage"...
I have counterbalanced this danger by mentioning that the priest in question is a "vagus" traditionalist, claiming a state of grave spiritual necessity supplies him with jurisdiction, thereby validating the sacrament.It would be interesting to know the opinion of Bishop Williamson and Fr Francois Pivert. Fr Pivert, who was a lawyer before entering the seminary, was on the St Charles Borromeo Commission which was set up by the SSPX to examine marriages. Dare we ask Fr Kramer?
I hoped that constructing the emails (also wrote to two other archbishops in Italy and USA) in that fashion was make them give a more restritive rendering, since they will not want to concede validity or liceity to a traditionalist priest.
We'll see. Maybe they won't respond at all, or maybe they will respond with nonsense, or, maybe they'll actually provide decent argumentation. Since the effort was next to nothing, it seemed wirth a shot.
Can anyone think of a good trad canonist I could reach out to?
Update: A-ha! I just had a great idea...
From which bishop does Fr. Raphael get his oils?I second this question. Will the answer be forthcoming?
Good point. So how far does this go? How far can the Trad bishops and priests go? Because it sure does seem that the Trad bishops and priests do act as if they are the official hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church.Good question, 2V. How far does the state of necessity allow one to go? I don't think any Trads deny the state of necessity in the Church. I think the answer is, as far as is required for the salvation of souls. However, one must have the power to do what he does. No layman can ordain a priest, for example. That is what is in question here.
If a priest confirms without permission, he's suspended. But this canon doesn't deny he has the faculty (i.e. inherent power) to do so, nor does it say such are invalid.But this Canon does:
But a priest decides to confirm because 1,000s of catholics each year (or over a period of multiple years) can't get confirmation and the response is, "Oh my gracious! This is such a SCANDAL. Horrible, no good priest!"
I believe the 1983 code has a very liberalized approach to priestly confirmations. Those who accept its authority (I personally do not) can likely appeal to it with ease to validate priestly confirmations.Yes, I suspect that is true:
presumo nada.(https://i.imgur.com/2PUnVM2.png)
Você está defendendo que o duvidoso ministro extraordinário da Confirmação, Pe Arrizaga, confirme seus filhos quando o certamente válido ministro ordinário da Confirmação estiver em seu quintal. De que outra forma você poderia dizer "vejo que o sacramento é condenado à morte por estudiosos da internet"?
Ou você está em oposição ao seu bispo ou não tem consideração pela lei de Deus e pela Igreja.
I second this question. Will the answer be forthcoming?As usual, the holy oil is consecrated by the Bishop, in the case of Fr Raphael. (Bis)
As usual, the holy oil is consecrated by the Bishop, in the case of Fr Raphael. (Bis)
I presume nothing.Where is the necessary jurisdiction for this Bishop you name to confirm? If you make so much noise and fuss, claiming jurisdiction, where is the Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, sitting on his chair, from where he administers his diocese, entrusted by the Holy See, which had its episcopal consecration approved by the Pope. Would that be the case with the Bishop who referred me? Where is this ONE WHO HAS ORDINARY JURISDICTION? Point me please!
You are advocating that the doubtful extraordinary minister of Confirmation, Fr Arrizaga, confirm your children when the certainly valid ordinary minister of Confirmation is in your backyard. How else could you say "I see that the sacrament is sentenced to death by internet scholars"?
Either you are in opposition with your bishop, or you have no regard for the law of God and the Church.
Which bishop would that biBispos da "resistência"
Bispos da "resistência"Which one?
Qual deles?Nas palavras de Padre Rafael: "Padre Hewko me los dió. Y Padre Hewko los recibió de Mons Zendejas. Eso fue creo hace pueco tiempo"
I presume nothing.as you can see, there are statements in both directions, but I do not have your pride in using those that favor me as dogmas of the Faith, infallibly fulminated ex cathedra in an unfailing way as you intend to make everyone believe. DON THOMAS IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN MY BISHOP, STOP YOUR FILTHY ASSERMENTS!
You are advocating that the doubtful extraordinary minister of Confirmation, Fr Arrizaga, confirm your children when the certainly valid ordinary minister of Confirmation is in your backyard. How else could you say "I see that the sacrament is sentenced to death by internet scholars"?
Either you are in opposition with your bishop, or you have no regard for the law of God and the Church.
Nas palavras de Padre Rafael: "Padre Hewko me los dió. Y Padre Hewko los recibió de Mons Zendejas. Eso fue creo hace pueco tiempo"Then this is an additional cause for concern, since these holy oils would be years old, whereas canon law forbids old oils to be used, and requires new oils every year.
(https://i.imgur.com/2PUnVM2.png)Thank you Thomaz. Computer Translation:
(https://i.imgur.com/2PUnVM2.png)we have other sources, which will be displayed here as soon as I can travel to get my books
Where is the necessary jurisdiction for this Bishop you name to confirm? If you make so much noise and fuss, claiming jurisdiction, where is the Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, sitting on his chair, from where he administers his diocese, entrusted by the Holy See, which had its episcopal consecration approved by the Pope. Would that be the case with the Bishop who referred me? Where is this ONE WHO HAS ORDINARY JURISDICTION? Point me please!The bishop automatically has the power to validly confirm. He doesn't need to have it activated according to any law or theological opinion. We are not making an argument here about ordinary jurisdiction, but power of order to validly confirm.
as you can see, there are statements in both directions, but I do not have your pride in using those that favor me as dogmas of the Faith, infallibly fulminated ex cathedra in an unfailing way as you intend to make everyone believe. DON THOMAS IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN MY BISHOP, STOP YOUR FILTHY ASSERMENTS!I am not saying Dom Tomas has ordinary jurisdiction, but that as a bishop he is the ordinary minister of Confirmation.
... Fr. Hewko (who himself has not received any from +Zendejas for years, if ever).I recall the bishop telling us that Fr. Hewko did attend a priest meeting at the bishop's residence/Retreat house and did obtain the oils. But that was a onetime event for Fr. Hewko as he resumed criticizing the Bishops of the Resistance all priests friendly to them.
...
I recall the bishop telling us that Fr. Hewko did attend a priest meeting at the bishop's residence/Retreat house and did obtain the oils. But that was a onetime event for Fr. Hewko as he resumed criticizing the Bishops of the Resistance all priests friendly to them.
What year would that have been?I thought it was more than a year ago. Seems like it was before the COVID craze. Maybe something more recent happened since then, but was not made known to us.
Incidentally, one priest sends me a message that +Zendejas gave holy oils to Fr. Hewko last year. If that is true, the integrity of the oils would likely still be OK.
On the contrary, Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc.) says: "The sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great veneration, and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it related or known to have been conferred in apostolic times by others than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or validly performed by others than those who stand in their place. And if anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and void; nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the Church." Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which is called "the sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be given by a bishop.
Here we are again discussing yet another priest attempting to confect an invalid sacrament. Why? Their logic seems to be this:
[...]
2. In such a state the Church supplies! (Ignoring that the supplementary principle will only supply jurisdiction);