Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation  (Read 4123 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46524
  • Reputation: +27408/-5061
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2025, 09:01:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 22, 2025, 02:24:22 PM
    :facepalm:  So are you promoting illicit sacraments, which are a grave sin?  Sounds like it.

    What are you talking about?  Nearly ALL the Sacraments Traditional Catholics receive are ILLICIT, and dispensing with some of the legal requirements due to necessity or pastoral need, that's what we've been all about since Vatican II.  One should have sufficient reason (in proportion to the gravity of the requirement), of course, but there's no Traditional Cathoilic bishop out there confirming with the requisite jurisdiction to do so.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #61 on: May 22, 2025, 09:03:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2025, 10:20:03 PM
    Confirmation (compared to baptism) is not a quick sacrament to administer.  First you gotta make sure the person is prepared.  Then make sure there’s a sponsor.  Then the bishop has to have holy oils ready, etc.  I think this is why it’s typically done “as a group” to save time. 

    So ... preparation isn't necessary by divine law.  Eastern Rites cofirm infants.  When Bishop Williamson conditionally confirmed me, I went up there and it took about 30 seconds.  I can't even recall if there was a proxy/stand-in sponsor (maybe there was and maybe there wasn't) ... but there was no formal preparation or examination that took place either.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #62 on: May 22, 2025, 09:04:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on May 22, 2025, 02:06:01 PM
    Wrong on all counts for validity.

    Whilst canon law (both the 17 and 83 Codes) require a candidate to have reached age of reason and be adequately prepared (meaning understanding of THIS sacrament, not of the whole Faith), all that is required for validity is that someone be baptised.

    The Eastern Churches (most of them) administer Chrismation along with First Communion at infant Baptism. For them, this both valid and canonically licit.

    A sponsor is not necessary for validity, only liceity.

    Chrism oil is kept in an aumbry in most every church sanctuary.

    I saw this after my response, but essentially said the same thing.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #63 on: May 22, 2025, 09:04:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on May 22, 2025, 08:30:38 PM
    EVERYTHING that trad clergy (SSPV, CMRI, Roman Catholic Institute, etc.) is strictly speaking illicit from Masses to blessings, from Baptisms to Confirmations. Even the SSPX is mostly illicit in its ministrations apart from confessions and delegated marriages.

    You make for a terrible canonist and sound like some Indulter.

    THIS  ^^^ ... again saying the same thing I did (because it's pretty basic).
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12097
    • Reputation: +7622/-2302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #64 on: May 22, 2025, 10:00:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on May 22, 2025, 08:30:38 PM
    EVERYTHING that trad clergy (SSPV, CMRI, Roman Catholic Institute, etc.) is strictly speaking illicit from Masses to blessings, from Baptisms to Confirmations. Even the SSPX is mostly illicit in its ministrations apart from confessions and delegated marriages.

    You make for a terrible canonist and sound like some Indulter.
    Wrong.  Emergency canons = licit.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12097
    • Reputation: +7622/-2302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #65 on: May 22, 2025, 10:08:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 22, 2025, 09:01:33 PM
    What are you talking about?  Nearly ALL the Sacraments Traditional Catholics receive are ILLICIT, and dispensing with some of the legal requirements due to necessity or pastoral need, that's what we've been all about since Vatican II.  One should have sufficient reason (in proportion to the gravity of the requirement), of course, but there's no Traditional Cathoilic bishop out there confirming with the requisite jurisdiction to do so.
    Wrong.  A lack of jurisdiction is not the same thing as sacramental illicitness.  Two different types of things.  Canon law allows for the former, under emergencies.  It does not allow for the later, with the same crisis-based permission.  Which is why there is an appeal to Epikeia.  

    Nobody has to appeal to Epikeia for jurisdiction because canon law provides for supplied.  But streamlining sacramental requirements (which are normally illicit) is not in canon law, thus the appeal to Epikeia.  Which is an opinion.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12097
    • Reputation: +7622/-2302
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #66 on: May 22, 2025, 10:22:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 22, 2025, 09:03:10 PM
    So ... preparation isn't necessary by divine law.  Eastern Rites cofirm infants.  When Bishop Williamson conditionally confirmed me, I went up there and it took about 30 seconds.  I can't even recall if there was a proxy/stand-in sponsor (maybe there was and maybe there wasn't) ... but there was no formal preparation or examination that took place either.
    Ok if you want to argue that preparation and a sponsor aren’t necessary, then you can’t say (as Elwin did) that it’s illicit.  Either canon law matters or it doesn’t.  You can’t disagree with canon law and appeal to Divine Law. 
     
    My point is, saying something is illicit is a serious matter.  In our day and age, illicitness is too often discounted and a hyper focus is put on validity alone.  It would be like teaching converts that the 10 commandments are essential but the 6 laws of the church aren’t. 
    Sure there are degrees of church law and obedience but when Elwin is appealing to Epikeia for rationalization of ignoring canon law, then I see major problems. 

    For the most part, Traditionalism is covered by canon laws’ emergency permissions.  One is treading on thin ice if you’re gonna keep stretching the (already thin) emergency canons using Epikeia.  Not a lot of prudence there. 

    But…if one still wants to argue Epikeia, then by definition, it’s not illicit, because Epikeia means it’s an unreasonable law.  

    Illicit means a violation of a reasonable law.  Which is a sin.  A law which is unreasonable (ie Epikeia) is not a sin nor is it illicit to violate it.  Terms matter.  
    Logged

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Reputation: +1539/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #67 on: Yesterday at 06:02:58 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Non Possumus: AHORA LA NEO-FSSPX NO QUIERE DAR CONFIRMACIONES BAJO CONDICIÓN

    Citas de Monseñor Lefebvre: 
    ..."el sacramento de la Confirmación. Ahora bien, la fórmula corriente es: “Yo te signo con la cruz y recibe el Espíritu Santo”. Deben especificar cuál es la gracia especial del Sacramento por la cual se da el Espíritu Santo. Si no decimos estas palabras: “Ego te confirmo in nomine Patris…” ¡no hay Sacramento! También se lo dije a los Cardenales, porque me dijeron: ¡Ustedes están dando la Confirmación donde no tienen derecho a hacerlo!”. Lo hago porque los fieles temen que sus hijos no tengan la gracia de la Confirmación, porque tienen dudas sobre la validez del Sacramento que ahora se administra en las iglesias. Entonces, para tener al menos esta seguridad de tener realmente la gracia, se me pide que dé la Confirmación. Hago esto porque me parece que no puedo rechazar a quienes me piden una Confirmación válida aun que ilícita, porque estamos en un tiempo en que la ley divina natural y sobrenatural prima sobre la ley eclesiástica positiva cuando ésta se opone a aquélla en lugar de ser su canal. Estamos en una crisis extraordinaria" ("De la Misa evangélica de Lutero al Novus Ordo Missae", 1975). 
    ... "no dudo en confirmar condicionalmente cuando me lo piden. El sacramento es demasiado importante, especialmente hoy, como para descuidarlo" (Carta de Mons. Lefebvre de 25 de abril de 1988. Docuмento completo abajo).

    Logged

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1323
    • Reputation: +1070/-81
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #68 on: Yesterday at 07:03:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mr G on Yesterday at 06:02:58 AM
    Non Possumus: AHORA LA NEO-FSSPX NO QUIERE DAR CONFIRMACIONES BAJO CONDICIÓN

    Citas de Monseñor Lefebvre:
    ..."el sacramento de la Confirmación. Ahora bien, la fórmula corriente es: “Yo te signo con la cruz y recibe el Espíritu Santo”. Deben especificar cuál es la gracia especial del Sacramento por la cual se da el Espíritu Santo. Si no decimos estas palabras: “Ego te confirmo in nomine Patris…” ¡no hay Sacramento! También se lo dije a los Cardenales, porque me dijeron: ¡Ustedes están dando la Confirmación donde no tienen derecho a hacerlo!”. Lo hago porque los fieles temen que sus hijos no tengan la gracia de la Confirmación, porque tienen dudas sobre la validez del Sacramento que ahora se administra en las iglesias. Entonces, para tener al menos esta seguridad de tener realmente la gracia, se me pide que dé la Confirmación. Hago esto porque me parece que no puedo rechazar a quienes me piden una Confirmación válida aun que ilícita, porque estamos en un tiempo en que la ley divina natural y sobrenatural prima sobre la ley eclesiástica positiva cuando ésta se opone a aquélla en lugar de ser su canal. Estamos en una crisis extraordinaria" ("De la Misa evangélica de Lutero al Novus Ordo Missae", 1975).
    ... "no dudo en confirmar condicionalmente cuando me lo piden. El sacramento es demasiado importante, especialmente hoy, como para descuidarlo" (Carta de Mons. Lefebvre de 25 de abril de 1988. Docuмento completo abajo).

    Why the down thumb? Learn Spanish, it will make you more intelligent.
    Logged

    Offline Twice dyed

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 508
    • Reputation: +210/-21
    • Gender: Male
    • Violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. EX: 35, 6.
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #69 on: Yesterday at 09:49:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on Yesterday at 07:03:58 AM
    Why the down thumb? Learn Spanish, it will make you more intelligent.
    Thanks for the link. To read many links with foreign languages nowaday, open link in Firefox or Google Chrome, then clic "TRANSLATE PAGE". The translation will be 95 % accurate. If a statement is questionable( Google won't allow certain words - woke), just research a bit more. Many other translation apps out there. Yandex only translates one line at a time I think, so use Format Text > Wrap
    *****
    Excerpt: "...Monsignor Lefebvre always gave Confirmation under condition to the faithful who had received this sacrament according to the new rite of Paul VI, because it is of dubious validity. And the four bishops consecrated by him always did the same.

    But now the FSSPX (official website of the British District) has published an article on conditional confirmation, which says the following in its conclusion:

    "The purpose of this article ... is to consider whether or not it is justified to request conditional..."
    ****
    Quotes from Monsignor Lefebvre:

    ..."the sacrament of Confirmation. Now, the common formula is: I sign you with the cross and receive the Holy Spirit. They must specify the special grace of the Sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is given. If we say these words, " I confirm you in the Name of the Father"... there's no Sacrament. I also told the Cardinals, because they said to me, "You are giving Confirmation where you have no right to do so." I do so because the faithful fear that their children will not have the grace of Confirmation, because they have doubts about the validity of the Sacrament that is now administered in the churches. So, to at least have this assurance of being really [valid?], I'm asked to give Confirmation. I do this because it seems to me that I cannot reject those who ask me for a valid confirmation even if I am illicit, because we are at a time when the natural and supernatural divine law prevails over positive ecclesiastical law when it opposes it rather than its channel. We are in an extraordinary crisis" ("From the Evangelical Mass of Luther to Novus Ordo Missae," 1975).

    ..." I don't hesitate to confirm conditionally when asked. The sacrament is too important, especially today, to neglect it" (Letter from Mons. Lefebvre of 25 April 1988. Full docuмent below).
    ****
    At least you get the gist of an article...better than nothing. Be cautious quoting these translations. God Bless+

    Logged
    La mesure de l'amour, c'est d'aimer sans mesure.
    The measure of love is to love without measure.
                                     St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD)

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3948
    • Reputation: +2977/-285
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #70 on: Yesterday at 09:14:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 22, 2025, 09:03:10 PM
    So ... preparation isn't necessary by divine law.  Eastern Rites cofirm infants.  When Bishop Williamson conditionally confirmed me, I went up there and it took about 30 seconds.  I can't even recall if there was a proxy/stand-in sponsor (maybe there was and maybe there wasn't) ... but there was no formal preparation or examination that took place either.
    He probably knew formal, lengthy preparation and examination was unnecessary for you.

    +Bp. Williamson also “conditionally” Confirmed me, but since my first round was without doubt invalid, and I was relatively new to Tradition, I attended the Confirmation classes and took the exam along with the kids. I just confined my questions and comments to the teacher for after class. He assigned me different homework than the kids which I usually submitted in writing. I studied Sunday afternoons with my sponsor and except for the basic prayers, Apostles Creed, etc. my final exam was written and oral prayers in Latin. No reason to take up time, mine and the young people’s, with an adult’s level. The children ranged in age from 11-15. I was in my late 40’s. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #71 on: Yesterday at 10:20:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 22, 2025, 10:22:52 PM
    Ok if you want to argue that preparation and a sponsor aren’t necessary, then you can’t say (as Elwin did) that it’s illicit.

    Could you please try to read what I actually wrote?  I said that those things aren't "necessary by divine law", but you leave out that essential qualifier that I spent the rest of my post distinguishing.

    That's one of the most blatant forms of strawman argumentation, where you mistquote someone and then attack your bad quotation.

    So, another thing that isn't necessary by divine law is for Cardinals to elect a Pope ... but that does not mean it isn't ORDINARILY necessary (by Church precept or for prudential reasons).
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46524
    • Reputation: +27408/-5061
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #72 on: Yesterday at 10:28:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 22, 2025, 10:08:50 PM
    Wrong.  A lack of jurisdiction is not the same thing as sacramental illicitness. 

    Yet another strawman coming from your lack of comprehension.  As per above, some Sacraments do require jurisdiction for liceity, and some (under ordinary circuмstances) even for validity.

    Just read Canon Law about Holy Matrimony.  Ordinarily Canon Law requires that the marriage take place with the witness of a pastor (with that level of jurisdiction).  In this case, if they were to pronounce their vows before some assistant priest without the jurisdiction, it would absolutely in that case be "sacramental illicitness".

    As Elwin said, you really don't know what you're talking about ... so please just quite while you can before it degenerates into an embarrassment.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
    « previous next »