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. 

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.

Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation | District of Great Britain

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.

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.

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! 

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.

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.

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