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?

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.

I think enough has been shared here to show that traditional Latin rite priests today cannot validly confirm

 Just a note on whether or not some priests have fresh oils or not.  Even if  a priest does not work directly with a bishop, often the traditional bishop will give Holy Oils to reputable clergy. They might not see everything eye to eye, but, for the good of souls, they want the baptised, and even more so, the dying, to have whatever Holy Mother Church could give them.  No one can be everywhere.

 I know  that at least in the recent past  Recognise and Resist Bishops have given Holy Oils to known sedevacantist priests.

Here we are again discussing yet another priest attempting to confect an invalid sacrament. Why? Their logic seems to be this:

1. There’s a state of emergency! (Ignoring the fact that there’s a difference between a state of emergency and a crisis);
2. In such a state the Church supplies! (Ignoring that the supplementary principle will only supply jurisdiction);
3. Therefore we’re free to do whatever we want! (Ignoring the ‘mark’ of the Church: Unity of Communion i.e. whatever is done must be a last resort after every other avenue has been tried).

Mithrandylan has pretty much explained everything and readers would be well advised to steer clear of these “confirmations”.

A few other points:

1. The Church has yet to define what power is delegated by the pope. It could be one of order, or jurisdiction, or some order/jurisdiction hybrid, or some third unknown power. However the supplementary principle will only supply power of jurisdiction;
2. The supplementary principle will only supply a power that the holder of an office would legitimately exercise. So, power to confirm would never be supplied to a parish priest since the pastor is trying to arrogate to himself powers greater than those which the Code confers upon pastors. Miaskiewicz explains this (“Supplied Jurisdiction according to Canon 209”, p.229);
3. If a delegated power of the pope can be supplied then why not the delegated power to ordain? There are at least three instances in medieval time where three different popes have delegated power to simple priests to order to both the diaconate and priesthood. So why doesn’t Fr. Arrizaga start arrogating the power to ordain for the same reasons?


So here we are again. Invalid ministers (e.g. the invalid consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer by Webster and those ordained by them). Invalid juridical acts (e.g. a simple priest erecting a Third Order - that power belongs to a bishop). Invalid sacraments (Bishop Ambrose Moran-Dolgorouky allowed to celebrate Mass and hear confessions and Fr. Arrizaga’s invalid confirmations) and no doubt invalid Masses. You have been warned.