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)

.
Theologians produced in this thread sometimes say that it is A, sometimes say that it is B (and I think there's a C, too). And regardless of which explanation they favor, 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. 

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.

.
According to you. All the theological authorities disagree. If you are content disregarding them all, so be it. Let's just be clear that the idea you're advancing is unsupported by any theological authority. 

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.

.
If you say so. It's hardly a settled point of theology. My opinion is that of Billot/Pohl's, that there is a latent power which remains inert except and unless the pope activates it. I have avoided going into detail on that particular point precisely because it's not only contentious, but it also doesn't bear out a practical difference. 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?

"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.

.
Yes to all.

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.

.
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.
.

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.

.
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.

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 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 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.

.
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.

.
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.

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.
4. I don't see why epikeia cannot apply in the matter of laws relating to priests confirming.

+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.

.
I think we really have to bear in mind the unique theological facts about confirmation when we are attempting to find analogies. Mainly, we need to bear in mind that it is a power of order (not jurisdiction) that makes confirmation valid, and that regardless of what the exact relationship between that power and a priest is, the priest cannot make use of the power except and unless the pope intervenes (such intervention may be by common law as it is in the East, or by special delegation, indult., etc. as it is in the west).  
.
The question isn't so much about what canonical hand-slaps await priests who are not covered by this indult but who confirm anyways (although for priests this should be a concern, for laity it is not); the question is very much "are such confirmations even valid?" The case myself and others have put forth is not a case that shies away from priestly confirmation because of any particular penalty, but rather a case which shies away from priestly confirmation because unless a priest meets the criteria established in Pius XII's indult he simply doesn't confirm validly. I think, were matters otherwise (i.e., if priests could make use of this power without dependence on the pope) we could mount a compelling case for epikeia or intrinsic cessation of law. 
.
I hope this is all clear. I am not animated by penal concerns but by sacramental validity concerns.

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.

.
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.  
.

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.

.
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).
.

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 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.
.

Just wanted to say I was edified by the calm exchanges between PV and Mith.  That's the way things ought to be.