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] 5 6

Author Topic: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation  (Read 4761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SimpleMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4966
  • Reputation: +1918/-242
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2025, 06:17:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2025, 11:16:03 AM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4966
    • Reputation: +1918/-242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #46 on: May 17, 2025, 06:18:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on May 17, 2025, 05:16:46 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1325
    • Reputation: +1071/-81
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #47 on: May 17, 2025, 09:30:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 06:18:45 PM
    "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.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1516
    • Reputation: +1246/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #48 on: May 17, 2025, 10:03:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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...
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12101
    • Reputation: +7624/-2303
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #49 on: May 17, 2025, 10:20:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on May 17, 2025, 06:18:45 PM
    "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.  
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1516
    • Reputation: +1246/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #50 on: May 21, 2025, 06:05:48 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • I sent a very brief email to various priests and faithful condemning this article.
    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...
    Logged

    Offline AMDGJMJ

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3656
    • Reputation: +2249/-84
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #51 on: May 21, 2025, 06:36:04 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on May 21, 2025, 06:05:48 AM
    I sent a very brief email to various priests and faithful condemning this article.
    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...
    This is good to hear!  :pray:
    Logged
    "Jesus, Meek and Humble of Heart, make my heart like unto Thine!"

    http://whoshallfindavaliantwoman.blogspot.com/

    Offline Twice dyed

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 510
    • Reputation: +212/-21
    • Gender: Male
    • Violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. EX: 35, 6.
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #52 on: May 22, 2025, 10:33:03 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • https://www.latinmassmaritimes.org/question-3-validite-de-la-confirmation

    ",,,Confirmation in the Novus Ordo valid ?
    On December 3rd, 1970, it was decided in Rome, contrarily to the constant Tradition of the Church, that the sacrament of Confirmation could be given with any vegetable oil and not only, as it was the case till then, with olive oil. Consequently, Archbishop Lefebvre was holding the sacrament of Confirmation as doubtful in the Novus Ordo and was advising all those confirmed in the Novus Ordo to be conditionally confirmed in the traditional rite.

    Also, on August 12th, 1998, Mgr Tissier de Mallerais, after reading the book called “Le drame Anglican” from Dr Rama Cosmaraswamy, wrote the following : “I came to the conclusion that the validity of episcopal consecrations given according to the rite of Paul VI is doubtful”. This letter of His Excellency Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has circulated a little bit everywhere. Many other theologians having studied the question carefully have come to the same conclusion.,,,"

    ****
    neoSspx recently declated that they are perfectly the same," semper idem", as +Lefebvre 50 years back. So,  was + Tissier de Malerais in error when he concluded that episcopal consecrations were doubtful, and by extention any sacrament they perform?
    To be fair, Fr Sherry doesn't represent the entire neoSspx. Throw in a NO "bishop" Huonder and witness the resultant reeky riddle.
    Logged
    La mesure de l'amour, c'est d'aimer sans mesure.
    The measure of love is to love without measure.
                                     St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD)

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11409
    • Reputation: +6380/-1119
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #53 on: May 22, 2025, 10:38:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • How does this square with this:

    U.S. SSPX District Superior Letter: On the New Holy Father - SSPX Resistance News - Catholic Info

    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.

    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1005
    • Reputation: +765/-145
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #54 on: May 22, 2025, 02:06:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 17, 2025, 10:20:03 PM
    Confirmation (compared to baptism) is not a quick sacrament to administer.  First you gotta make sure the person is prepared.  Then make sure there’s a sponsor.  Then the bishop has to have holy oils ready, etc.  I think this is why it’s typically done “as a group” to save time. 
    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.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12101
    • Reputation: +7624/-2303
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #55 on: May 22, 2025, 02:24:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on May 22, 2025, 02:06:01 PM
    A sponsor is not necessary for validity, only liceity.

    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.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1005
    • Reputation: +765/-145
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #56 on: May 22, 2025, 05:32:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 22, 2025, 02:24:22 PM
    :facepalm:  So are you promoting illicit sacraments, which are a grave sin?  Sounds like it.
    No. I am looking at this terms of epikeia as is necessary in the extraordinary circuмstances of the ongoing Crisis in the Church.

    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.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12101
    • Reputation: +7624/-2303
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #57 on: May 22, 2025, 06:40:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ElwinRansom1970 on May 22, 2025, 05:32:13 PM
    No. I am looking at this terms of epikeia as is necessary in the extraordinary circuмstances of the ongoing Crisis in the Church.

    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.
    You can't just throw out ALL of canon law, in a crisis.  You have to use common sense. 

    "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.
    Logged

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5458
    • Reputation: +4111/-284
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #58 on: May 22, 2025, 06:46:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on May 22, 2025, 10:38:28 AM
    How does this square with this:

    U.S. SSPX District Superior Letter: On the New Holy Father - SSPX Resistance News - Catholic Info

    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.
    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.
    Logged

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1005
    • Reputation: +765/-145
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: SSPX now discourages Conditional Confirmation
    « Reply #59 on: May 22, 2025, 08:30:38 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 22, 2025, 06:40:31 PM
    You can't just throw out ALL of canon law, in a crisis.  You have to use common sense. 

    "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.
    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.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
    « previous next »