A friend asked me if I was confirmed recently, and I couldn't positively answer in the affirmative.

I was confirmed last May by Bishop Burbidge, who is a NO bishop. The ceremony was held at a new age looking church, there was plenty of Amazing Grace and Rain Down, and it was a very joke-filled atmosphere. I don't know the correct way to confirm someone, but this is how it went down for me:

1. My sponsor was also sponsoring someone else, so all three of us went up together.
2. The bishop said something, and then shook my hand.
3. The only thing I knew going into confirmation was that the bishop is supposed to slap you, so I said, "Bishop, I have a request. Can you slap me like they did in the old days?" He hesitated for a moment, and then lightly patted me on the cheek.
4. That was it.

Is my confirmation valid? I didn't feel any different afterwards, and the whole ceremony was pretty disappointing, as I had been waiting for years to be confirmed.

A friend asked me if I was confirmed recently, and I couldn't positively answer in the affirmative.

I was confirmed last May by Bishop Burbidge, who is a NO bishop. The ceremony was held at a new age looking church, there was plenty of Amazing Grace and Rain Down, and it was a very joke-filled atmosphere. I don't know the correct way to confirm someone, but this is how it went down for me:

1. My sponsor was also sponsoring someone else, so all three of us went up together.
2. The bishop said something, and then shook my hand.
3. The only thing I knew going into confirmation was that the bishop is supposed to slap you, so I said, "Bishop, I have a request. Can you slap me like they did in the old days?" He hesitated for a moment, and then lightly patted me on the cheek.
4. That was it.

Is my confirmation valid? I didn't feel any different afterwards, and the whole ceremony was pretty disappointing, as I had been waiting for years to be confirmed.

For the Sacrament to be valid, you need proper matter, form, intention and minister.  It sounds like most if not all of these are lacking or in doubt in your case.

2. The bishop said something, and then shook my hand.

So I agree with the previous post:  go get Confirmed by a Traditional bishop using the Traditional rite of the Sacrament.  

But anyway, here is some info on the Sacrament of Confirmation:

http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/sacraments/catechism_of_the_council_of_trent_confirmation.htm#Component Parts of Confirmation

Component Parts of Confirmation

The Matter

We now come to treat of the component parts of the Sacrament, and first of its matter. This is called chrism, a word borrowed from the Greek language, and which, although used by profane writers to designate any sort of ointment, is appropriated by common usage among ecclesiastical writers to signify that ointment only which is composed of oil and balsam with the solemn consecration of the Bishop. A mixture of two material things, therefore, furnishes the matter of Confirmation; and this mixture of different things not only declares the manifold grace of the Holy Ghost given to those who are confirmed but also sufficiently shows the excellence of the Sacrament itself.

The Remote Matter of Confirmation is Chrism

That such is the matter of this Sacrament the holy Church and her Councils have always taught; and the same doctrine has been handed down to us by St. Denis and by many other Fathers of the gravest authority, particularly by Pope Fabian, who testifies that the Apostles received the composition of chrism from our Lord and transmitted it to us.

The Appropriateness of Chrism

Nor indeed could any other matter than that of chrism seem more appropriate to declare the effects of this Sacrament. Oil, by its nature rich, unctuous and fluid, expresses the fullness of grace, which, through the Holy Ghost, overflows and is poured into others from Christ the head, like the ointment that ran down upon the beard of Aaron, to the skirt of his garment; for God anointed him with the oil of gladness, above his fellows, and of his fullness we all have received.

Balsam, the odor of which is most pleasant, can signify nought save that the faithful, when made perfect by the grace of Confirmation, diffuse around them such a sweet odor of all virtues, that they may say with the Apostle: We are unto God the good odour of Christ. Balsam has also the power of preserving from corruption whatever it is used to anoint. This property seems admirably suited to express the virtue of the Sacrament, since it is quite evident that the souls of the faithful, prepared by the heavenly grace of Confirmation, are easily protected from the contagion of sins.

Chrism to be Consecrated by the Bishop

The chrism is consecrated by the Bishop with solemn ceremonies; for that our Savior gave this instruction at His last supper, when He committed to His Apostles the manner of making chrism, we learn from Fabian, a pontiff eminently distinguished by his sanctity and by the glory of martyrdom.

The necessity of this consecration may, however, be shown from reason also. In most of the other Sacraments Christ so instituted their matter as to impart holiness also to it. For not only did He designate water as the element of Baptism, saying: Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God; but He also, at His own Baptism, imparted to it the power of sanctifying thereafter. Hence these words of St. Chrysostom: The water of Baptism, had it not been sanctified by contact with the body of our Lord, could not purge away the sins of believers. As, then, our Lord did not consecrate this matter of Confirmation by actually using and handling it, it is necessary that it be consecrated by holy and religious prayers; and this consecration can appertain to none save the Bishop, who has been appointed the ordinary minister of this Sacrament.

The Form of Confirmation

The other component part of Confirmation, that is, its form and the words used at the sacred unction, must also be explained. The faithful are to be admonished that in receiving this Sacrament they are, in particular on hearing the words pronounced, to excite their minds to piety, faith and religion, that no obstacle may be placed to heavenly grace.

The form of Confirmation, then, is comprised in these words: I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. If we call upon reason regarding this truth, we may also easily prove the same thing; for the form of a Sacrament should comprise all those things that explain the nature and substance of the Sacrament itself. But in Confirmation these three things are chiefly to be noted: the divine power which, as a principal cause, operates in the Sacrament; the strength of mind and soul which is imparted by the sacred unction to the faithful unto salvation; and finally, the sign impressed on him who is to enter upon the warfare of Christ. Now of these the first is sufficiently declared by the concluding words of the form: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; the second, by the words immediately preceding them: I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation; and the third, by the words with which the form opens: I sign thee with the sign of the cross.

But were we even unable to prove by reason that this is the true and perfect form of this Sacrament, the authority of the Catholic Church, under whose guidance we have always been thus taught, suffers us not to entertain the least doubt on the subject.

Minister of Confirmation

Pastors should also teach to whom especially has been committed the administration of this Sacrament; for as, according to the Prophet, there are many who run without being sent, it is necessary to teach who are its true and legitimate ministers, in order that the faithful may be enabled to receive the Sacrament and grace of Confirmation.

Now the Holy Scriptures show that the Bishop alone is the ordinary minister of this Sacrament, because we read in the Acts of the Apostles that when Samaria had received the Word of God, Peter and John were sent to them, who prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for he was not as yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized. Here we may see that he who had baptized, having been only a deacon, had no power to confirm; but that its administration was reserved to a more perfect order of ministers, that is, to the Apostles. The same may be observed whenever the Sacred Scriptures make mention of this Sacrament.

Nor are there wanting in proof of this matter the clearest testimonies of the holy Fathers and of Popes Urban, Eusebius, Damasus, Innocent and Leo, as is evident from their decrees. St. Augustine, also, seriously complains of the corrupt practice of the Egyptians and Alexandrians, whose priests dared to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation.

The thorough propriety of reserving this function to Bishops the pastor may illustrate by the following comparison. As in the construction of buildings the artisans, who are inferior agents, prepare and dispose cement, lime, timbers and the other material, while to the architect belongs the completion of the work; so in like manner this Sacrament, which is, at it were, the completion of the spiritual edifice, should be performed by no other than the chief priest.

I would agree with songbird on this one.  This bishop was likely consecrated in the New Rite so he is, at best, a doubtful bishop.  If so, then you haven't been confirmed.

On the other hand, I was confirmed by a bishop that was originally consecrated in the traditional rite but in the first year the new rite of confirmation was used.  I have never been able to get an answer as to whether or not the new rite of confirmation is, by its nature, a valid confirmation.  I don't know.

Has anyone seen an analysis of the new rite of confirmation?  Can it be a valid sacrament?

I would agree with songbird on this one.  This bishop was likely consecrated in the New Rite so he is, at best, a doubtful bishop.  If so, then you haven't been confirmed.

On the other hand, I was confirmed by a bishop that was originally consecrated in the traditional rite but in the first year the new rite of confirmation was used.  I have never been able to get an answer as to whether or not the new rite of confirmation is, by its nature, a valid confirmation.  I don't know.

Has anyone seen an analysis of the new rite of confirmation?  Can it be a valid sacrament?

I don't think I've seen an in-depth analysis, but from what I understand, it is most often doubtful.  Even leaving aside the question of whether the Novus Ordo bishops are valid these days, I've heard there are doubts about both the form and the matter in most Novus Ordo "Confirmations".   I would certainly not trust them these days, but your case is a tricky one:  It seems you had a valid minister, most likely valid intention, possibly valid matter (since they might not have been changing it so early on), so the main question would likely be the form.  And that, I really don't know.

Why does the Society of St. Pius X administer conditionally the sacrament of ... confirmation to those who received them in the Novus Ordo?

... The bishops of the Society administer the sacrament of confirmation conditionally when the faithful request it, that is, when they have a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the sacrament that they received, and this doubt cannot be resolved, as is usually the case. This is the case if oil other than the sacred chrism is used, or an oil other than olive oil (highly doubtful, since at variance with the divine institution of using olive oil) as is now permitted in the new rites, or if the signing with the sacred chrism and the imposition of the hand were not done at the same time, or if there is a doubt about the words used. Since there is a great variety in the words used, and since the traditional words "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" are never used, there is very frequently a doubt about the validity of the administration of this sacrament.  This is the reason why the Society’s bishops do not hesitate to administer it conditionally when asked to do so.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

I too was "Confirmed" in the Novus Ordo not long after the new rite came out.  Probably a similar situation to yours.  I went ahead and got conditionally Confirmed by a SSPX bishop, to be sure.   As I type, I see songbird's advice, " if you were confirmed after 1971, get confirmed "conditionally" again." - sounds like good advice.

This is extremely disheartening.

I had an N.O. confirmation as a teenager. It meant a lot to me.  There was plenty I didn't understand, but I did know what it meant to love and honor Christ, believe the truth of the Catholic faith, and accept responsibility for my spiritual life.

Songbird, you state your comment as though it is an absolute fact.  Can you share the theological evidence for such an assertion?  To state that all N.O. confirmations are definitely invalid is just mind blowing to me.  

It is in fact those proclamations of certainty that make me so hesitant "keep going."

This is where the N.O. apologists really start to instill doubts in me.   It's so frustrating.  :cry:

PW, don't lose heart.  I know this crisis in the Church is frustrating ( to put it mildly!).  And don't dwell too much on Songbird's "proclamations of certainty."  Unfortunately, in the case of so many Novus Ordo Sacraments, there is more than enough "doubt," even if we aren't certain they are invalid.  For something as important as Confirmation (and all the Sacraments, really), we need certainty.  Getting a Conditional Confirmation is to ensure certainty.  And in the case of Alex117's original post, he doesn't even mention chrism, which is essential.  (That is why I quoted his

2. The bishop said something, and then shook my hand.

statement, but I forgot to mention the chrism point after the quote.  If there was no chrism used  (as it sounded like), it was certainly invalid.  

But in general, what I am trying to say is, whether we can state with certainty that "all N.O. confirmations are definitely invalid" is not so much the point as, "most if not all N.O. confirmations leave room for doubt."  I hope that helps.

Besides other problems, the NO rite does not require the bishop to impose his hand on top of the confirmand as he pronounces the word and anoints the forehead with chrism.  This is enough to doubt its validity.
  The bishop being New Rite is also enough to doubt it, as well as the chrism not being blessed(no bishop, no blessing).
  The slap is not necessary for validity.
  It is funny that you say it was Bp Burbidge of Raleigh(I presume).  What I recall reading of him is that he is a "very conservative" NO bishop who is not against the motu Mass.  I guess big tent can be applied to him as well.  Pray more people realise this before it is too late.

 Joe

Well damn. I was hoping for more affirmative answers, but it looks like everybody is saying that it probably wasn't valid. I guess I'm going to have to track Bishop Williamson down one of these days so that he can slap me into being a full member of the Church. Thanks for answering my question, fellas.

Well, damn - you're on an anonymous internet forum- what else did you expect. You can track BW down, but it would be better for you to find a priest who can guide you with these sorts of questions dude. Yes, yes- even priests will disagree on these matters. You need to pray and find a father confessor you can turn to. I know its not easy, and its been a while since I've seen your posts- if I remember correctly you may have had transportation issues (or issues being near TLM). Thats really the best answer.

There are certain steps which must be taken, when possible, when progressing in the faith. I don't try to help convert an Atheist by discussing God's Nature, because I must first show and get him to agree to his existence. You have the Faith; you are Catholic. This implies that you should have a spiritual Father over you and questions pertaining to the validity of the Holy Sacraments, especially when they pertain to you, should be directed to him and only him. If you have yet to find a priest to place yourself under, that is still no excuse to pose the question to others. Since you're in a state of limbo anyways (asking here wont get you to a priest; it won't actually solve your problem) place your efforts in reverting to the right step- find a priest. With technology today (you seem pretty in tune with that), you should be able to get many a willing priests to assist you with your questions and getting you to the sacraments.  

Questions of this magnitude- and we must realize the implications that validity have on both sides of the issue- should be directed not by the majority opinion of those on internet fora, but by the guidance of a worthy priest. I commend you for your fervor you bring to the Faith- try not to lose that, but also try to help root it.

Pray for me- I need it!

My confirmation was given in a NO church, by a NO priest. It was given at the same time that I received conditional Baptism. I had no sponsor. There was no Bishop present at all, the priest put the oil on my forehead. Do you think I should apply to be re-Confirmed, or receive a conditional Confirmation? Perhaps I have been lacking in certain graces which come with Confirmation.