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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation  (Read 2081 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline OABrownson1876

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
  • Reputation: +547/-27
  • Gender: Male
    • The Orestes Brownson Society
Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2025, 06:00:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I visited the traditional Redemptorists in England back in 2000.  It was a nice trip, but at the end of the day they denied me admittance into the Traditional Redemptorists, and Fr. Anthony Mary sent me this letter on Baptism of Desire.  Never have I seen a priest attack Fr. Feeney and not end up falling into some form of liberalism.  I have heard that the Redemptorists in England started sliding toward liberalism, but I never followed up on them.

    I was sent a rejection letter which read,

    "Having looked at the question of baptism of desire and your letter to Fr. Pfeiffer, it is clear that the question concerns the interpretation of written texts. This problem is confined to the U.S.A. another sign of its error.

    Until you are settled in this issue and agree with our holy father St. Alphonsus about baptism of desire...or at least do not deny it, I am sorry but we could not receive you."  12 Feb. 2001, Fr. Anthony Mary, I.SS.R



    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline trento

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 799
    • Reputation: +224/-144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #31 on: May 16, 2025, 08:59:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The doubt in most cases is that olive oil is not used in some cases for the chrism. If there is proof that other oils besides olive oil is used for the chrism, then conditional confirmation can be done.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12028
    • Reputation: +7569/-2277
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #32 on: May 16, 2025, 09:43:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: trento on May 16, 2025, 08:59:27 PM
    The doubt in most cases is that olive oil is not used in some cases for the chrism. If there is proof that other oils besides olive oil is used for the chrism, then conditional confirmation can be done.
    :facepalm:  No, the doubt is that (per +Tissier's oft-repeated warnings) the new rites of consecration are doubtful.  Thus, when doubtful bishops perform confirmation, it's also doubtful.
    Logged

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 667
    • Reputation: +547/-27
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #33 on: May 16, 2025, 11:56:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: phillips on May 15, 2025, 11:09:37 PM
    why on earth would you doubt valid confirmation by Fr Wathen? he was one of the first clerics to warn everyone about the revolution against the Church
    I did not have doubts about this confirmation, but my spiritual director in seminary insisted that I get confirmed sub conditione by Bishop Williamson. 
    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline phillips

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +10/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #34 on: May 17, 2025, 03:54:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: OABrownson1876 on May 16, 2025, 11:56:13 PM
    I did not have doubts about this confirmation, but my spiritual director in seminary insisted that I get confirmed sub conditione by Bishop Williamson.
    oh I see. thanks for your explanation.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1512
    • Reputation: +1238/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #35 on: May 17, 2025, 04:34:11 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: trento on May 16, 2025, 08:59:27 PM
    The doubt in most cases is that olive oil is not used in some cases for the chrism. If there is proof that other oils besides olive oil is used for the chrism, then conditional confirmation can be done.
    No proof is required.
    The ongoing circus of the Conciliar Revolution is proof enough. There is grave doubt about all their sacraments.
    This includes doubts regarding episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations, often on many levels: matter, form, intention and minister, compounded over many decades.
    It is utterly scandalous that this article should have been published on a Traditional website.
    Logged

    Offline Philip

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 122
    • Reputation: +63/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #36 on: May 17, 2025, 07:39:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I was conditionally confirmed in 1989. There were no questions asked about oils and it was agreed simply because the NO form was considered doubtful.
    Logged

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4937
    • Reputation: +1893/-234
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #37 on: May 17, 2025, 08:26:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on May 16, 2025, 09:58:37 AM
    The problem is not just the bishop. The form was changed, and also the matter. The Novus Ordo allows oils other than olive oil to be used for the sacraments.

    Now you're making me wonder if I ought to see out conditional confirmation.  (I was confirmed when I was baptized, by a Novus Ordo priest, albeit ordained in the old rite, ditto the bishop and his consecration, mid-1970s.  I don't know what kind of oils he used.)

    Dumb question, maybe, what would be the feasibility of finding a cooperative traditional bishop (I may be in Florida this summer and will have several options) and having him privately to confer the sacrament, maybe after Mass?  Is it something that can be done quickly and without anything but the essential rites?
    Logged

    Offline VivaJesus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 18
    • Reputation: +14/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #38 on: May 17, 2025, 08:44:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 08:26:41 AM
    Dumb question, maybe, what would be the feasibility of finding a cooperative traditional bishop (I may be in Florida this summer and will have several options) and having him privately to confer the sacrament, maybe after Mass?  Is it something that can be done quickly and without anything but the essential rites?
    Bp. de Galarreta is coming to Mexico in September. The priests of the SSPX district of Mexico don't have a problem with conditional confirmations to those "confirmed" in the NO. I can get you in touch.

    Your confirmation by a validly ordained priest would be also invalid for another reason. Priests only have the power to validly confirm if the Pope grants it to them. There was a thread a while back on that topic and the debate centered around whether the power to confirm was part of the potestas ordinis of a simple priest. Some users brought up powerful evidence that that's not the case. Search "Father Rafael Arizaga confirmations" or something like that if you want to read that thread.
    Logged
    "Blessed is the simplicity which leaveth alone the difficult paths of questionings, and followeth the plain and firm steps of God’s commandments." - The Imitation of Christ

    "If Jesus was baptized with water to fulfill all justice, how shall we have justice fulfilled in us without Baptism of Water?" - Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life. 

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4937
    • Reputation: +1893/-234
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #39 on: May 17, 2025, 08:52:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: VivaJesus on May 17, 2025, 08:44:46 AM
    Bp. de Galarreta is coming to Mexico in September. The priests of the SSPX district of Mexico don't have a problem with conditional confirmations to those "confirmed" in the NO. I can get you in touch.

    Your confirmation by a validly ordained priest would be also invalid for another reason. Priests only have the power to validly confirm if the Pope grants it to them. There was a thread a while back on that topic and the debate centered around whether the power to confirm was part of the potestas ordinis of a simple priest. Some users brought up powerful evidence that that's not the case. Search "Father Rafael Arizaga confirmations" or something like that if you want to read that thread.
    I am nowhere near Mexico and don't foresee being there anytime soon.

    I thought that, even under pre-Vatican II norms, bishops could grant priests faculties to confer confirmation validly.   Was i wrong?

    Are you saying that prior to the Vatican II-era norms, all adult converts received into the Church had to wait to be confirmed until the bishop came to their parish to confirm the youths who had been preparing for confirmation?
    Logged

    Offline VivaJesus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 18
    • Reputation: +14/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #40 on: May 17, 2025, 09:03:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 08:52:30 AM
    I am nowhere near Mexico and don't foresee being there anytime soon.

    I thought that, even under pre-Vatican II norms, bishops could grant priests faculties to confer confirmation validly.  Was i wrong?

    Are you saying that prior to the Vatican II-era norms, all adult converts received into the Church had to wait to be confirmed until the bishop came to their parish to confirm the youths who had been preparing for confirmation?
    Bp. de Galarreta is going to confer confirmations in Mérida, Yucatán on September 23rd, I think. There are 2h long direct flights between Mérida and Miami, Florida.

    Here's the thread I was referring to: Fr. Raphael Arrizaga Begins Administering Confirmations? - page 1 - Catholic Living in the Modern World - Catholic Info

    A    fter reading it, I think that the diocese bishops cannot grant the power to confirm to their priests, only the Pope can grant it. Most adult converts were confirmed by their diocese bishop, with the only exceptions of those confirmed by Latin rite priests with that faculty (granted by the Pope), those confirmed by the abbot of some abbey in Germany (can't recall its name) and those confirmed by Byzantine rite priests who historically had that power granted to them with their order.

    This is a hard topic which caused a hot debate because why wouldn't an ordinary priest have that power? He either has it or not. And if in some occasions he may have it, when is it conferred upon him? Wouldn't the current state of necessity supply traditional priests that faculty as it supplies validity to their confessions and matrimonies? But the conclusion is clear from the authoritative references cited in that thread: Latin rite priests do not have the power to confirm unless the Pope grants it to them.
    Logged
    "Blessed is the simplicity which leaveth alone the difficult paths of questionings, and followeth the plain and firm steps of God’s commandments." - The Imitation of Christ

    "If Jesus was baptized with water to fulfill all justice, how shall we have justice fulfilled in us without Baptism of Water?" - Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life. 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12028
    • Reputation: +7569/-2277
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #41 on: May 17, 2025, 10:16:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 08:52:30 AM
    I am nowhere near Mexico and don't foresee being there anytime soon.

    I thought that, even under pre-Vatican II norms, bishops could grant priests faculties to confer confirmation validly.  Was i wrong?

    Are you saying that prior to the Vatican II-era norms, all adult converts received into the Church had to wait to be confirmed until the bishop came to their parish to confirm the youths who had been preparing for confirmation?
    I think certain bishops were allowed to delegate this power to priests, typically in missionary cases. 

    At the time that Fr Wathen was confirming (80s-90s) there weren’t a lot of Trad bishops around and he used the historical allowance of the Order of St John, which was a military order, to confirm. 

    But priests providing confirmation is not the norm, even pre-V2.
    Logged

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4937
    • Reputation: +1893/-234
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #42 on: May 17, 2025, 10:42:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2025, 10:16:43 AM

    But priests providing confirmation is not the norm, even pre-V2.

    I realize it's not the norm, but was it done in ordinary cases of people being received into the Church, back when it was usually a one-on-one series of classes with a parish priest, with baptism being conferred privately and individually?  (Nowadays, they force converts to go through all of that RCIA/OCIA rigamarole, with baptism and confirmation possibly being delayed for a year or two.  They make it all about "community".  Groupy-groupy.)

    When I was received in this fashion, the priest simply conferred confirmation immediately after my baptism.  Was this not done prior to the Vatican II era?  Did converts have to wait until the bishop came around?
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12028
    • Reputation: +7569/-2277
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #43 on: May 17, 2025, 11:16:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 10:42:00 AM
    I realize it's not the norm, but was it done in ordinary cases of people being received into the Church, back when it was usually a one-on-one series of classes with a parish priest, with baptism being conferred privately and individually?  (Nowadays, they force converts to go through all of that RCIA/OCIA rigamarole, with baptism and confirmation possibly being delayed for a year or two.  They make it all about "community".  Groupy-groupy.)

    When I was received in this fashion, the priest simply conferred confirmation immediately after my baptism.  Was this not done prior to the Vatican II era?  Did converts have to wait until the bishop came around?
    The parish priest confirmed you?

    I don’t know the answer to your question, but…I can say that in pre-V2 times, hearing stories from that generation, it was normal for schools to have annual confirmations between the 6th-8th grade.  The bishop lived in the diocese.  He didn’t have to travel far.  Sounds like he rotated between schools every year.  I’m sure there was also a schedule for adult confirmations to be done, collectively, once or twice a year. 

    Maybe there was a priest who was given special confirmation authority?  I don’t know. 
    Logged

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1313
    • Reputation: +1055/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #44 on: May 17, 2025, 05:16:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 08:26:41 AM
    Now you're making me wonder if I ought to see out conditional confirmation.  (I was confirmed when I was baptized, by a Novus Ordo priest, albeit ordained in the old rite, ditto the bishop and his consecration, mid-1970s.  I don't know what kind of oils he used.)

    Dumb question, maybe, what would be the feasibility of finding a cooperative traditional bishop (I may be in Florida this summer and will have several options) and having him privately to confer the sacrament, maybe after Mass?  Is it something that can be done quickly and without anything but the essential rites?

    I would do it if I were you. No anxiety, but do it when you can. The sooner the better if you go to the SSPX, because they will probably stop doing it soon.

    I don't see a reason for it to be done secretly. I guess it can be done only with the essential rites, but you would need a good reason for it.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
    « previous next »