Author Topic: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations? (Read 13208 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #75 on:** April 23, 2023, 07:27:05 AM »

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #76 on:** April 23, 2023, 09:37:45 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2023, 07:27:05 AM

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.

.
Papal approval to confirm is not a kind of permission to do something the priest can already do but is forbidden from. Papal approval lifts a priest so that his degree of Holy Orders is fuller, and inclusive of the power to confirm; without which elevation he just can't confirm validly.

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2023, 07:27:05 AM

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.

.
The argument is that there is no way for a priest to validly confirm because he lacks the requisite power of order. It has nothing (per se) to do with obedience, canonical processes, or anything else. And nothing to do with whether the attempt to confirm is sinful.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #77 on:** April 23, 2023, 10:16:59 AM »

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).

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #78 on:** April 23, 2023, 10:30:17 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on April 23, 2023, 10:16:59 AM

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:

https://maddoxfuneralhome.com/father-constantine-paul-michael-belisarius/

I was too young to remember much about it and I have had a hard time finding the proper resources to research the matter so thank you for the confirming what I had thought Mithrandylan.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #79 on:** April 23, 2023, 02:18:12 PM »

Quote

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.

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.

The history of the East and quotes from the Church Fathers prove this power exists in the priest but was changed for reverence and discipline reasons.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #80 on:** April 23, 2023, 07:15:32 PM »

Quote from: frankielogue on April 20, 2023, 01:19:37 PM

Archbishop Lefebvre started doing this by approving it on the 1 May 1980.

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.

Frankielogue, the link you provided doesn't work for me "internal server error".
Are you saying that Archbishop Lefebvre approved of Trad priests administering Confirmation?
Are you able to provide another link?
Many thanks.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #81 on:** April 23, 2023, 08:29:53 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2023, 02:18:12 PM

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.
.
You are talking not just as though they are all wrong, but obviously wrong, at that. It's a little incredible to expect me to just simply take your explanation and conclusion in place of theirs.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #82 on:** April 23, 2023, 09:37:39 PM »

Quote

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.

'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.'

FrSretenovic · « **Reply #83 on:** April 23, 2023, 10:19:23 PM »

Good evening.

I have been following with much interest this particular thread. The reason for this is as the situation in the Church and in the world become increasingly dire, I realize that I might be asked by the laity if I can Confirm them in the absence of a Bishop. If air travel becomes impossible for the Resistance Bishops or if State lines become closed for an extended period of time (which was indeed threatened by our present imposter in chief a few years back) then I need to know with as much certainly as possible what I am allowed and even required to do for the portion of the flock in my care. I offer no thoughts of my own at present. I have learned more than once the necessity of proceeding slowly and with great caution before coming to any conclusions and sharing them with others, especially publicly.

Having said that, I did in fact contact Father Raphael last night and asked him if he was aware of the thread in question and he responded that he has read it and he has asked me to post his response below.

God bless you and Happy Easter.

Father Sretenovic

Response by Fr. Raphael

Confirmation done by a priest as extraordinary minister.

  It is a very important issue. It is the right moment to address once for all this topic which has been for a long time neglected. Our people need confirmation, we need to strengthen the army of Christ and make soldiers to fight these a deadly fight, the greatest  in the history of the Catholic Church against the diabolical spirit of Vatican II. Please do post this brief answer, dear Father, for those lay men who disagreed with my decision. Many priests and faithful have just scruples about this subject. This fight is fought at the level of principles, so this topic also must be solve at that level, regardless the feelings and opinions which many of them may have. So, it would be an enormous benefit for the fight.

According to my research, the answer to those posts from the objectors are to be answered as follows:

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). So, we priests can perform the confirmations in the following cases, cases which are indeed unlocked by the Pope:
1st   By delegation given from a Bishop with jurisdiction.
2nd   As an indult granted by the Pope.
3rd   By Law when someone is In danger of death and before a ceremony of matrimony when any of the spouses is not yet been confirmed.

CIC 782-4, AAS 38-349. Decree of Pius XII. Spiritus Sanctus Munera, September 14th, 1946: “The faculty is granted to the priest to administer to a person in danger of death, when the diocesan bishop is impeded to perform the confirmation, and when there is not other bishop who could replace him without grave inconvenience.”
CIC 1021-2 “Confirmation must be received before a marriage if there is not grave inconvenience"

4rd   By the highest Law and the general right CASE by CASE for “the salvation of souls”. 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”.
Also we can say without a doubt that most of our faithful need Confirmation as a survival grace most needed to fight as soldiers the enemy in the greatest of dangerous circuмstances which are those of today. The strength of the apostles after Pentecostes is the same strength we need to receive today in order to practice, defend, and profess our Catholic Faith.

It is a great mistake to say that confirmation is not necessary for salvation. In fact the ordinary way willed by God for us to work our salvation is by our constant sanctification, in fact, there is not salvation without sanctification. Precisely, the Sacrament of Confirmation, the fulness of the Holy Ghost and His Gifts, especially the gift of Fortitude was instituted to work out our sanctification in the midst of perils.
“All the measures are to be taken so that at least every 5 years the sacrament of confirmation must be administered to the subjects” (CIC 785-3). “It must be received in due time” (CIC 787).

If we priests in a specific case invoke the highest Law (Salus Animarum),  then our power to confirm is “unlocked” automatically and it secures that the sacrament be licit and valid. More than that, even to perform that Confirmation in that case will be morally obligatory as the existing need to provide the grace for the salvation that that specific soul needs. When for whatever reason a bishop is not available or we cannot in conscience go to him so as to make soldiers for the army, the priest must step in and take it as a duty for the strengthening of the flock.

A key point in the solution of this problem is the fact that this unlocked power is granted to the priest in a CASE BY CASE event, according to the given circuмstances. When a priest administers confirmation in the present circuмstances, he is not doing so as  a permanent unlocked power. When he invokes the SALUS ANIMARUM  is only when he receives an unlocked power (CASE BY CASE).

In union of prayers,

Father Raphael OSB

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #84 on:** April 24, 2023, 04:27:42 AM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #85 on:** April 24, 2023, 04:52:42 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 24, 2023, 04:27:42 AM

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.

Correct:

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #86 on:** April 24, 2023, 05:03:25 AM »

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #87 on:** April 24, 2023, 05:24:30 AM »

Fr. Arrizaga also states that:

“So, we priests can perform the confirmations in the following cases, cases which are indeed unlocked by the Pope:

1st By delegation given from a Bishop with jurisdiction.”

This statement seems to be contradicted in the commentary of Woywood/Smith on Can. 782:

“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. (1957 edition, p. 407)

If I have properly understood this commentary, the latter portion of this commentary is not contradicting the former. It is reinforcing the necessity of an express papal delegation to the bishop. It is not saying a bishop may determine there is necessity (as in the case of jurisdictional matters), and delegate a faculty on this basis.

In other words, a bishop cannot delegate the power to confirm to a priest simply because he has jurisdiction, because it is not jurisdiction which gives him the power to delegate, but rather a grant from the pope.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #88 on:** April 24, 2023, 06:53:38 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2023, 09:37:39 PM

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.'

.
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.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #89 on:** April 24, 2023, 07:03:08 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 24, 2023, 04:52:42 AM

Correct:

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.

I am not convinced of this.

Quoting from the material you provided from Mithrandylan:
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. - Woywod
(b) Priests have a latent power to confirm (this is controversial-- that they can confirm is known certainly, how exactly is a matter of controversy but this seems the best explanation)
(c) This latent power can only be "activated" by the Holy See (whether by common law, indult, delegation, etc.) - Do we know who is making these comments in black, BTW?

So, it would therefore seem that this "activating" apostolic indult can come directly from Canon Law.

Indeed, it is Canon 782 #2 that states "The extraordinary minister is a priest to whom the faculty has been granted, either by common law or special indult of the Apostolic See".

Why would this particular law not be subject to all the general principles that govern Canon Law, above all, "suprema lex salus animarum"?

"Canon Law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God" - Pope Pius XII, Address to the clerical students of Rome, June 24, 1939

Why would the limits put on which particular priests can confirm (benefit from the apostolic indult activating their power), and under what circuмstances they can do so, not be lifted in a state of necessity by a benign interpretation of the law according to the mind of the legislator (epikeia)? After all, what is the purpose of this law, or all Church law?

Why would Canon 20 not apply?

Canon 20 of the 1917 Code lays down that if in a given matter there is lacking an express prescription of law, whether general or particular, then a norm of action is to be taken from (a) laws enacted in similar matters, (b) general principles of the law applied with canonical equity ("Canonical equity may be defined as a certain human moderation with which Canon Law is tempered, so that the text may be prudently and even benignly applied to concrete cases" - Bouscaren and Ellis), (c) the usage and practice of the Roman Curia, and (d) the common and constant teaching of learned authorities.

Fr Francois Pivert says in his book "Schism or Not", defending ABL's 1988 Consecrations: "We cannot deny the fact that the crisis of the Church is a well-determined, new, and grave case, for which no explicit provision can be found in Canon Law... a situation which lies outside the scope of all the ordinary rules of Canon Law..."

I am not asserting anything here, I am simply putting this out there for discussion.

Fr Woywod says in this article posted by Emile (great article, thank you!) The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 1938-05: Vol 38 Iss 8 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive that "Canon Law has not preserved the date of the change in the practice of the Church whereby the right to empower priests for the administration of Confirmation was reserved to the Supreme Head of the Church". 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?

Note, Fr Woywod even says in his article "Just what powers the priest needs to confirm validly is not easy to determine. The order of the priesthood suffices, for the episcopal order is not absolutely required in the minister of confirmation; but something besides that order is necessary. If one wishes to call it jurisdiction, one is baffled by the fact that a bishop can confirm validly without jurisdiction... it is quite certain that in the early centuries of the Church, the bishop could give authority to the priests to confirm..."

Author Topic: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations? (Read 13208 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Mithrandylan

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Mithrandylan

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

AMDGJMJ

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Plenus Venter

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Mithrandylan

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

FrSretenovic

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Plenus Venter

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

SeanJohnson

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

SeanJohnson

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

SeanJohnson

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Mithrandylan

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?

Plenus Venter

Re: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations?