Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Mr G on May 14, 2025, 01:52:57 PM
-
Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain (https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375)
Here is the conclusion:
"The purpose of this article is not to analyse the failings of the liturgical revolution, but simply to consider whether or not one is justified in seeking the conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the old rite. In answer to the question posed, we can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace, and accept that there are many things that God does not expect you to know with dogmatic certainty in this life. To follow the safer path is to follow the one indicated by objective principles laid down by the Church long ago."
-
:facepalm:
Also a false dilemma. Who educated this guy?
We can never know the validity of a Sacrament we receive with DOGMATIC certainty, but moral certainty is required, and there are many reasons why that cannot be had with the Novus Ordo Sacraments, one of them being that it's very unlikely that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid ... and then you add to it the tendency of many Conciliar "bishops" to tinker with the form (that's especially true for Confirmation ... as I've heard bishops say, "Be a soldier for Christ", for instance) and at one point they were messing with the oils themselves.
-
Not sure if that's just a straight-out blunder in Logic 101 and Sacramental Theology or it's an attempt to use strawman gas-lighting.
So the people who disagree with us insist (strawman) upon having dogmatic certainty about the validity of Sacraments, and we can never have that.
Uhm, no. We insist upon MORAL certainty regarding the Sacraments and we are entitled to have it.
-
Also in the link ... :facepalm:
Considering the Sacrament of Confirmation specifically, we must remember that, on the one hand, it is one of the sacraments which imprint a character upon the soul, and which thus cannot be repeated absolutely without sacrilege. On the other hand, it is not one of those which are strictly necessary for salvation. Thus to be justified in receiving it again conditionally ...
So he's claiming that because Confirmation is not strictly necessary for salvation, to be justified in receiving it ... different criteria apply.
Nonsense. If you have any kind of reasonable / positive doubt whatsoever, conditional administration may certainy be JUSTIFIED. Maybe not "strictly required", but certainly justified.
So it's also been part of the propaganda on this point to overemphasis the requirements of administering Sacraments conditionally because ... oh, it would be a sacrilege to confer these Sacraments again. Yes, but, ahem, THAT IS WHY THE CONDITIONAL FORMULA IS USED. Consequently, there's no risk of scacrilege whatsoever in using the conditional formula. What Trent was saying is that you cannot go around willy-nilly conditionally readministering Sacraments to anybody with a pulse, i.e. for any negative doubt whasoever. "Father, what if my Baptism was invalid. Please give me conditional Baptism." ... although even there, if the individual were experiencing some traumatic crisis of faith, scrupulosity, despair, etc. ... it might be justified to do it for those reasons along, but one should do it privately.
But any even moderately legitimate reason would justify it. Even the SV priests have exaggerated the requirements for conditional administration, where they have to engage in some quasi-thorough investigation, almost as if you were researching a marriage annulment. Utter nonsense. There's no such requirement. It suffices that it's well known that there's a tendency in the Novus Ordo to tinker with Sacraments, adlib the form, mess with the matter, etc. That by itself suffices. You are not required to spend resources and even money that you don't have to do investigations that are likely impossible anyway to reach a conclusion on since most of these situations took places years and even decades ago.
This is more than adequate: "Novus Ordo has this attitude about messing with Sacraments. I don't have time to research this case and souls have more important needs I should be attending to."
THEN, however, with Holy Orders, for instance ... there's ABSOLUTELY some serious positive doubt about them. That in turn leads to serious positive doubt about NO Confirmations just due to the doubt about whether the NO bishops are valid, and then even if the NO priests are invalid (having been ordained by NO bishops). Even if you could make a case that a priest with authority could validly confirm, we're not even 100% sure he's a valid priest.
Probably the one case where you wouldn't just administer the Sacraments without further inquiry would be people who had received the in the Eastern Rites, or, say, a legit Orthodox Rite (vs. the weird auto-cephalous ones nobody can even trace) ... with the one exception where if people had been baptized as adults, I've seen the old "hair baptisms" even in Eastern Rite, where they just poor some water on someone's thick hair and you're not entirely sure if it even touched their skin.
-
Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain (https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375)
Here is the conclusion:
"The purpose of this article is not to analyse the failings of the liturgical revolution, but simply to consider whether or not one is justified in seeking the conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the old rite. In answer to the question posed, we can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace, and accept that there are many things that God does not expect you to know with dogmatic certainty in this life. To follow the safer path is to follow the one indicated by objective principles laid down by the Church long ago."
This is grounds for *possibly* red-lighting the new-sspx. They just keep inching closer and closer. It proves that the whole +Huonder infiltration was not an accident, but a conscious decision to ignore canon law and to treat the new rite as valid-until-proven-otherwise. I'm tired of their lies and sacramental game-playing. May God smite them down so that those decent sspx Trads can abandon ship.
-
I was Confirmed in the early 70's, I made the decision to get conditionally confirmed, with the approval of my Traditional Priest, in 2023 and glad I did. At least I now know the Sacrament "stick" so to speak
-
This is grounds for *possibly* red-lighting the new-sspx. They just keep inching closer and closer. It proves that the whole +Huonder infiltration was not an accident, but a conscious decision to ignore canon law and to treat the new rite as valid-until-proven-otherwise. I'm tired of their lies and sacramental game-playing. May God smite them down so that those decent sspx Trads can abandon ship.
Yes, I agree. See, I can tolerate someone who SINCERELY concludes that there's no doubt based on X, Y, or Z. I might disagree with them, and not receive Sacraments from them, but I can't and won't impose my conscience on them.
What I absolutely CANNOT stand is where they have ulterior (usually political) motives to want a certain outcome and then butcher logic and principles however they need to in order to get that outcome. That's absolutely and utterly reprehensible, and some of the SSPX leadership making these decisions could easily lose their souls over it. If they are wrong, but even if they are not wrong, but are just not intellectually honest ... if some souls don't get valid Sacraments due to this nonsense, they commit grave sin and are liable to damnation over it. Being a priest, especially a superior, isn't all about being respected and honored. It comes with great responsibility.
We ALL KNOW what their motivation is. "If we say that the NO Sacraments are doubtful, we can never reach an agreement with them or have any cooperation with them." So let's engage in whatever intellectual and theological gymnastics we need to in order to prevent that outcome. Instead of letting the TRUTH lead them where it may.
On top of that if it's a matter of "souls could be lost if I'm wrong and I am not entirely sure" vs. "let's play footsie with Bergoglio and now Prevost", so +Fellay can get a red hat and we can get enough seminarians to justify the $50 million price tag, and "we can't be like those eeeevil sedevacantists"", and you opt for your political nonsense while harming or at least endangering souls?
I agree with you that it's absolutely deplorable and it objectively constitutes grave sin for which they are liable to hellfire if they're wrong.
-
I was Confirmed in the early 70's, I made the decision to get conditionally confirmed, with the approval of my Traditional Priest, in 2023 and glad I did. At least I now know the Sacrament "stick" so to speak
Yeah, I was confirmed by "Bishop" Pilla of Cleveland (longtime head of USCCB) in 1982, but then received conditional from Bishop Willaimson before enterining STAS at Winona.
HIGHLY SUSPECT of having been a very high ranking memeber of the lavender mafia, and even looks strikingly like Liberace ...
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/legacy/uploads/2021/9/21/bishop-anthony-pilla.jpg)
(https://legacyprojectchicago.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Liberace.jpg)
-
Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain (https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375)
Here is the conclusion:
"The purpose of this article is not to analyse the failings of the liturgical revolution, but simply to consider whether or not one is justified in seeking the conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the old rite. In answer to the question posed, we can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace, and accept that there are many things that God does not expect you to know with dogmatic certainty in this life. To follow the safer path is to follow the one indicated by objective principles laid down by the Church long ago."
I got conditionally confirmed not that long ago with the SSPX, I just said I had doubts about my confirmation and would like a conditional one, and I got it. I never told them the reasons why I had doubts.
-
Yeah, I was confirmed by "Bishop" Pilla of Cleveland (longtime head of USCCB) in 1982 ... HIGHLY SUSPECT of having been a very high ranking memeber of the lavender mafia ...
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/legacy/uploads/2021/9/21/bishop-anthony-pilla.jpg)
Fr. Pilla was a very odd fellow.
-
Fr. Pilla was a very odd fellow.
I served "Mass" for him occasionally in the early 1980s.
-
Strong simple argument. If pure OLIVE oil isn't used for Confirmation, or whatever sacrament that soul would have received is probably invalid. Doubtful.
neoSspx is getting careless, looks like it.
****
https://www.reddit.com/r/sspx/comments/w8faye/conditional_confirmation/
"...AveMaria17
3y ago
Yes speak to the priest, I had conditional confirmation. The doubt being sometimes dioceses don’t use 100% olive oil for the chrism which invalidates the sacrament so there is sufficient doubt for any NO Catholic..."
***
The matter matters. Also, the symbolism of olive oil is excellent: Our Lord's Agony in the Garden of Olives; the oil has many healing properties( parable of the Good Samaritan) it must be crushed in its production ( just like wheat for hosts must be crushed), it gives off light when burning (Light of the world) Children of light. As food it gives nourishment and general health. It softens stiff materials ( conversion). It is a clear substance (symbol of purity, innocence) . It spreads ( Gospel, sets a higher moral standard in civilizations, do not put your faith under a bushel ) etc.
Olive oil has been used in the Church for 2000 years +, so it is a venerable tradition.
-
To cut through any arguments on this subject I usually say "If the sacrament was perfect before, then the only possible result of changing it, is to render it imperfect"
-
According to st Vincent ferrer those without the sacrament of confirmation will not persevere under the antichrist. This is serious stuff,
-
To cut through any arguments on this subject I usually say "If the sacrament was perfect before, then the only possible result of changing it, is to render it imperfect"
That could be, but not necessarily.
What Fr. Wathen says in his book "Who Shall Ascend?" about the NO ordinations, is true also for NO confirmations.......
"It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)"
-
:facepalm:
Also a false dilemma. Who educated this guy?
We can never know the validity of a Sacrament we receive with DOGMATIC certainty, but moral certainty is required, and there are many reasons why that cannot be had with the Novus Ordo Sacraments, one of them being that it's very unlikely that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid ... and then you add to it the tendency of many Conciliar "bishops" to tinker with the form (that's especially true for Confirmation ... as I've heard bishops say, "Be a soldier for Christ", for instance) and at one point they were messing with the oils themselves.
but what about confirmations that occurred in the 1980s? there seems to be a gray area there because many of the bishops at that time were consecrated in the old rite before changes to the new rite.
-
I was conditionally Confirmed by +Bp. Williamson. It was by my request because when recalling the “confirmation” I received in 1973, I pretty much knew it was not valid. Of course, this was in 2007.
-
I was conditionally Confirmed by +Bp. Williamson. It was by my request because when recalling the “confirmation” I received in 1973, I pretty much knew it was not valid. Of course, this was in 2007.
He conditionally confirmed me also in 2013. My personal evidence for my previous "confirmation" in 1999 not being valid is that I was a different person before 2013 than I was after. In terms of growth in virtue. Totally anecdotal but nonetheless real to me and my family.
-
He conditionally confirmed me also in 2013. My personal evidence for my previous "confirmation" in 1999 not being valid is that I was a different person before 2013 than I was after. In terms of growth in virtue. Totally anecdotal but nonetheless real to me and my family.
I knew 1973 was invalid because the confirmands anointed one another, not the bishop. Also, in 1973, I didn’t know enough to know it was invalid!
-
Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain (https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375)
Here is the conclusion:
"The purpose of this article is not to analyse the failings of the liturgical revolution, but simply to consider whether or not one is justified in seeking the conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the old rite. In answer to the question posed, we can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace, and accept that there are many things that God does not expect you to know with dogmatic certainty in this life. To follow the safer path is to follow the one indicated by objective principles laid down by the Church long ago."
Wow! I guess it shouldn't, but this shocks me. It is utterly sickening!
Shame on Fr Nicholas Mary CSSR who wrote this article, he should be back in the Conciliar Church with his infamous leader Fr Michael Mary/Gregory Sim who wanted his faithful to experience 'normal diocesan life'.
And shame on Fr David Sherry the new District Superior of Great Britain for publishing such scandalous material on his website.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX Bishops after him travelled the world conditionally confirming, so obvious was it that the presumption is in favour of invalidity with the diabolical disorientation in the Conciliar circus.
But now Fr Nicholas Mary enlightens us with his superior knowledge. What a joke, if it weren't so serious. This is lamentable. This is evil!
Thank God this is not the attitude in most SSPX chapels... yet.
Another 'compromise, change and contradicition' to add to Sean's book.
-
I knew 1973 was invalid because the confirmands anointed one another, not the bishop.
Pardon me, but that is absolute spucatum tauri. (What they did, not your narration of the matter.)
An abomination.
-
Pardon me, but that is absolute spucatum tauri. (What they did, not your narration of the matter.)
An abomination.
I know that now, but was so poorly catechised that at age 15, I didn’t know it was actually an abomination to God. The “liturgy” was written by a student committee and taught us by a nun in a pants suit. At that time, we didn’t even have confirmation names, and everyone’s “sponsor” was the priest whose name I can’t recall. He wore clerics at least when I saw him. There were five one hour classes in the evening we had to attend. We received copies of very basic prayers and the script to the “sacramental theatre.” We had to memorize the script and it was optional to memorize the prayers. Truly, I’m thankful I was truly ignorant, Mine was the generation almost entirely deprived of our faith by evil men. My parents were unable to attend because they were in Florida cleaning out the home of my maternal grandfather. He abandoned his family when mom was about age two and my parents were the only ones able to do the job. Unfortunately, I think my parents would have gritted their teeth and gone along with program. Their generation was brought up to obey authority. Beyond memorizing the catechism word for word, reciting it back followed by getting confirmed, that was all that was required to be a good Catholic. It’s really no mystery how they pulled off Vatican II.
-
Well, I was confirmed the first time by Bp. Thomas Kelly (circa 1984). Bp. Kelly was consecrated by Bernadin in 1977. We will just forget about the first time.
The second time I was confirmed by Fr. Wathen. I cannot remember the year, but it was probably legit. Fr. probably used the oils consecrated by Bp. McKenna as they knew each other.
When I was in seminary I was conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson. If I am not validly confirmed, then Houston we have a problem.
-
Well, I was confirmed the first time by Bp. Thomas Kelly (circa 1984). Bp. Kelly was consecrated by Bernadin in 1977. We will just forget about the first time.
The second time I was confirmed by Fr. Wathen. I cannot remember the year, but it was probably legit. Fr. probably used the oils consecrated by Bp. McKenna as they knew each other.
When I was in seminary I was conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson. If I am not validly confirmed, then Houston we have a problem.
Bernardin was a bad guy, for certain, but was he not a bishop? I don’t know. I don’t think I’d worry about Confirmation #2, but Bp. Williamson, it should put any doubts to rest. This sounds like my St. Augustine like spiritual journey to tradition. I left off Catholicism when I left the nest at 18. But I had a yearning for God. You name the Protestant denomination and I’ve probably been there. In the course of my journey, I got conditionally baptized four times in order to “make a public declaration for Christ.” I did this reluctantly after baptism #2, in ignorance of what baptism is! There was nothing wrong with my pre-V2 baptism as a baby! The others were objectively sinful, but I consented in ignorance. If anyone says I need another Catholic baptism, I would know now he is a heretic!
-
The second time I was confirmed by Fr. Wathen. I cannot remember the year, but it was probably legit. Fr. probably used the oils consecrated by Bp. McKenna as they knew each other.
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
-
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 was baptized by Fr. Altenbach about 1971, such were the times. With everything that was going on with the Church and world in those days, many (all?) of the pioneering trads expected the world was coming to an end. I have never had any doubt about validity and have never had any scruple or inclination to be conditionally confirmed.
-
but what about confirmations that occurred in the 1980s? there seems to be a gray area there because many of the bishops at that time were consecrated in the old rite before changes to the new rite.
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.
-
Fr. Nicholas Mary says:
"One could only doubt the validity of the minister if one had positive grounds to consider his ordination invalid. Since we have no reason to question the validity of the new rite of ordination of priests, and since various studies have looked at the new rite of consecration of bishops and answered any objections against its validity satisfactorily, we can safely say that the new rites of ordination are valid per se (though we do not exclude cases of potential invalidity per accidens as, for example, when individual bishops have mutilated or essentially changed the rites of Holy Orders, or when a particular priest’s ordination has been invalid due to his own baptism not having been valid). These latter cases can only be allowed to inform our doubts positively, i.e. when we have proof that this is what has happened. Mere negative doubt that speculates that something might have happened is not good enough, especially in the case of Confirmation, as we have noted."
Well in that case, why not go to the FSSP or Indult group? If all is valid, then why have an SSPX at all? They might as well go right now to the gαy bar in Rome and let the Cardinals know they are ready to sign an agreement.
-
Fr. Nicholas Mary says:
"One could only doubt the validity of the minister if one had positive grounds to consider his ordination invalid. Since we have no reason to question the validity of the new rite of ordination of priests, and since various studies have looked at the new rite of consecration of bishops and answered any objections against its validity satisfactorily,
:laugh1: Bishop +Tissier repeatedly wrote that the new rites of consecration/ordination are doubtful.
Well in that case, why not go to the FSSP or Indult group? If all is valid, then why have an SSPX at all? They might as well go right now to the gαy bar in Rome and let the Cardinals know they are ready to sign an agreement.
Exactly.
I guess +Fellay's plan was to wait for Tissier/Gallaretta/Williamson to all die so that the new-sspx leadership could practice "revisionist history" and pretend that everything these 3 bishops said for 40 years didn't happen.
-
Worthwhile to know that even the Vatican, Feb 2, 2024, is worried about the invalidity of any sacrament. Is neoSspx wiser than even Modernists re: Confirmation, when its attitude is naïve? / positive?
."...
https://fsspx.news/en/news/dicastery-doctrine-faith-publishes-note-sacraments-42324
"...
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Publishes a Note on the Sacraments
February 6, 2024
Source: FSSPX News
The new docuмent from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) is dated February 2, 2024, and is titled Gestis verbisque, which can be translated as “through gestures and words.” It refers to the constitution of sacraments, which consist of acts associated with ritual formulas.
In his presentation letter, the Prefect of the DDF, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, explains the reason for this Note: in January 2022, the cardinal and bishop members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “had expressed their concern regarding the multiplication of situations in which the invalidity of celebrated sacraments had been noted.”
Many difficulties came out of this: the need to track people down in order to repeat invalid baptism or confirmation, or even to baptize then ordain priests whose baptisms were invalid, leading to the nullity of the sacraments administered by them--except for baptism.
The Prefect also warns that “changing the form of a sacrament or its matter is always a gravely illicit act and deserves an exemplary punishment, precisely because such arbitrary gestures are capable of causing grave harm to the faithful People of God.”
A Classic Explanation
The docuмent explains in its introduction that “the liturgical celebration, in particular that of the sacraments, does not always take place in full fidelity to the rites prescribed by the Church.” And the DDF, having been consulted “many times” on the validity of celebrated sacraments, had to “sometimes conclude with a painful negative response,” particularly in the case of baptism.
The first part, while referring to the notion of the Church as a sacrament emphasized at the Second Vatican Council, which could be seriously discussed, nevertheless refers--just this once--to the Council of Trent, which had “solemnly declared the divine institution” of the seven sacraments. This requires an exemplary fidelity to this institution.
The second part recalls that the Church is not mistress of the sacraments: she cannot touch their “substance,” still according to the Council of Trent--that is to say, to the words, to the gestures, and to the matter, which are necessary to carry out a sacrament.
The words constitute the form: they explain what is being achieved. The matter can be an element (water, oil, bread, wine), and the gesture often accompanies the formula, like a Sign of the Cross or an anointing. Added to that is the intention of the minister, who must have the intent to accomplish “what the Church does.” Modifying one of these elements often renders the sacrament invalid.
The third part finally recalls that it is always Christ who principally acts in the sacraments: it is He who infuses grace into souls. The minister only offers his assistance. Furthermore, the Church acts with Christ, as His Spouse, and the priest also acts in the name of the Church. And the minister cannot replace Christ, nor the Church.
This is why he must religiously respect the sacramental liturgy over which he has no other power than to administer it: he cannot touch nor change anything. The text, despite this precise theology, maintains a source of deviations that it wants to eradicate.
Forgetting Responsibilities
In no. 21, it in fact recalls that, according to the Second Vatican Council, “we must leave room for legitimate diversity and adaptation to diverse ethnic groups, regions, peoples, especially in the missions.” It adds: “the liturgical reform [...] not only authorized the episcopal Conferences to introduce general adaptations [...], but it also anticipated the possibility of particular adaptations by the minister of the celebration.”
This is the liturgical reform, a true revolution, which blew a wind of anarchy into the celebration of the sacraments. The fact--absolutely unprecedented--that in around ten years, the rites of all the sacraments would be more or less profoundly reformed cannot but give the impression of flexibility in these fundamental elements of our worship.
Thus, in the Mass, the changes introduced and then multiplied were legion: at the end of the 70s, more than ten “Eucharistic prayers” had been approved, from the four originals to the one authorized “for particular circuмstances” including those for children’s Masses and the innumerable variants in various countries.
Thus, in a few years, the Latin rite, which had only ever had a single canon, having nourished the worship and meditation of the clergy and the faithful for so many centuries, was suddenly loaded with ten or so Eucharistic prayers, coming out--with the exception of the first--of the liturgical conception of the time. This was a conception which would soon become dated, by the admission of even the most enthusiastic.
It must be added that this Note of the DDF is not the first intervention of the Curia on this matter. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published the Instruction Inaestimabile donum on April 3, 1980. In it no. 5 reads: “We must use only the Eucharistic prayers contained in the Roman missal or legitimately allowed by the Apostolic See, according to the modalities and within the limits that it has fixed.”
This warning turned out to be clearly insufficient. Abuses continued to flourish. The following years would see the warnings parade by. Starting in 1988, Pope John Paul II felt obliged to recall that “we cannot tolerate that certain priests arrogate to themselves the right to compose Eucharistic prayers.”
Fifteen years later, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments must again intervene. On March 25, 2004, it publishes the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, on certain things to observe and to avoid concerning the Most Holy Eucharist.
The members of the Curia should perhaps meditate on these words: “God laughs at men who deplore the effects whose causes they cherish,” adapted from the great bishop, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, Book IV).
(Source : Vatican – FSSPX.Actualités)
..."
Vatican: 57 Parishes Authorized to Offer the Traditional Mass in 2022
13. August 2024
Home St. Thomas More Priory
© 2025 SSPX Society of Saint Pius X
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/fr-raphael-arrizaga-begins-administering-confirmations/)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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I was received into the Church in 1976. It wasn't pre-V2.
-
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.
"Secretly" isn't the concept I was trying to get across. My question was whether the bishop could confer the sacrament perhaps after Mass at the communion rail or similar circuмstances.
-
"Secretly" isn't the concept I was trying to get across. My question was whether the bishop could confer the sacrament perhaps after Mass at the communion rail or similar circuмstances.
"Discreetly" parhaps is the word we are looking for.
I guess he could, but I don't think he would.
-
The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church by Fr Matthias Gaudron SSPX, printed in Germany in 1997 and published by Angelus Press in 2010, concludes the section on the sacraments with this question: 91) Should one receive the sacraments in the new rites? Because of the defects presented above, one should not receive the sacraments in the new rites, but only in the traditional rites, WHICH ALONE ARE WORTHY AND CERTAINLY VALID...
-
"Secretly" isn't the concept I was trying to get across. My question was whether the bishop could confer the sacrament perhaps after Mass at the communion rail or similar circuмstances.
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.