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 ...
Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain (https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375)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.
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
Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain (https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375)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.
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."
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 ...Fr. Pilla was a very odd fellow.
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/legacy/uploads/2021/9/21/bishop-anthony-pilla.jpg)
Fr. Pilla was a very odd fellow.
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.
:facepalm: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.
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.
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)Wow! I guess it shouldn't, but this shocks me. It is utterly sickening!
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 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.)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.
An abomination.
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.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.
When I was in seminary I was conditionally confirmed by Bp. Williamson. If I am not validly confirmed, then Houston we have a problem.
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
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 ChurchI 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.
Fr. Nicholas Mary says::laugh1: Bishop +Tissier repeatedly wrote that the new rites of consecration/ordination are doubtful.
"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,
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.
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 ChurchI 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 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.
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.
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.I am nowhere near Mexico and don't foresee being there anytime soon.
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.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.
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 think certain bishops were allowed to delegate this power to priests, typically in missionary cases.
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?
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.)The parish priest confirmed you?
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?
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?
The parish priest confirmed you?I was received into the Church in 1976. It wasn't pre-V2.
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 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.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.
I sent a very brief email to various priests and faithful condemning this article.This is good to hear! :pray:
Fr Laisney was one of the recipients.
To his credit, he emailed Fr Pagliarani, Fr Sherry, Fr Nicholas Mary and another senior priest of the Society, copying my email to them and expressing his surprise at what was written.
That is what every priest ought to do.
So don't give up. Continue to voice your concerns to the SSPX priests when issues arise.
We may not save the Society, but we may save some souls, and one or two priests as well...
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.Wrong on all counts for validity.
A sponsor is not necessary for validity, only liceity.:facepalm: So are you promoting illicit sacraments, which are a grave sin? Sounds like it.
Chrism oil is kept in an aumbry in most every church sanctuary.
:facepalm: So are you promoting illicit sacraments, which are a grave sin? Sounds like it.No. I am looking at this terms of epikeia as is necessary in the extraordinary circuмstances of the ongoing Crisis in the Church.
No. I am looking at this terms of epikeia as is necessary in the extraordinary circuмstances of the ongoing Crisis in the Church.You can't just throw out ALL of canon law, in a crisis. You have to use common sense.
Do you hold that in an emergency all elements of law must be followed? Or do you deny that there is a crisis?
Additionally, distinctions between validity and liceity are important for understanding sacramental theology.
You are such a dumbass! And I have never before used that kind of vulgar language on CI.
How does this square with this:Good but if they are not administered by a valid minister ( A Bishop who Himself was consecrated by a valid traditional Bishop) , even traditional sacraments are doubtful.
U.S. SSPX District Superior Letter: On the New Holy Father - SSPX Resistance News - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/u-s-sspx-district-superior-letter-on-the-new-holy-father/)
For our part, we pray that, with the help of God’s grace, we will continue the mission of our heavenly patron, St. Pius X, to “restore all things in Christ,” especially the Sacred Traditions of Holy Mother Church while continuing to form holy priests who will travel this great land of ours—the land of Pope Leo XIV—to provide the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and all sacraments to the faithful in accordance with the traditional Roman Rite.
You can't just throw out ALL of canon law, in a crisis. You have to use common sense.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.
"Epikeia" is not an excuse for ignoring canon law. Traditionalism doesn't ignore canon law; it follows the "emergency canons" which allow CERTAIN rules (but not all) to be put aside.
Does canon law allow that the 'sponsor rule' be ignored during a crisis?
a. If 'yes' then it's not illicit.
b. If 'no' then you can't do it.
My point in challenging you is that you're not being precise in your terms, which can cause scandal to others. Something cannot be allowed by emergency, and still be illicit. That's the point.
If you're going to argue "epikeia" then, also, you're arguing that it's not illicit, or it's legal because it's a non-essential rule. But that's your opinion. If you're going to go around and say "it's ok to do illicit things" without explaining your actions, that's a horrible message. And only part of the story.
Validity is NOT the only thing that matters. People can go to hell over illicit things. It's not something that can just be glossed over.
:facepalm: So are you promoting illicit sacraments, which are a grave sin? Sounds like it.
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.
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.
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.
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.Wrong. Emergency canons = licit.
You make for a terrible canonist and sound like some Indulter.
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.
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.
Non Possumus: AHORA LA NEO-FSSPX NO QUIERE DAR CONFIRMACIONES BAJO CONDICIÓN (https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2025/05/ahora-la-neo-fsspx-no-quiere-dar.html)
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.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
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.
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.
Wrong. A lack of jurisdiction is not the same thing as sacramental illicitness.
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.Irrelevant. We’re going based on church law in force, right now. The Church can “bind” things which aren’t part of Divine Law.
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).
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.We’re not talking about “ordinary” times. Duh? We’re talking about the emergency canons.
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.
We’re not talking about “ordinary” times. Duh? We’re talking about the emergency canons.You are WAAAAAAY off on your canonical jurisprudence. There are none such things as "emergency canons". You are clearly reading your own interpretation into the code.
You're not getting my point, so let’s drop it.
Emergency canons = a layman’s term which has been around since the start of Traditionalsm in the 70s. Calm down, man.Dude, YOU are the one spouting off total nonsense drivel! YOU started this!
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.Where would u suggest SSPX laity turn to then? What areas have priests you can be comfortable with? What about the CMRI?