Author Topic: Two questions regarding Resistance Confirmations (Read 9077 times)

Green Scapular · « **on:** June 24, 2015, 08:23:09 AM »

http://associacaosantoatanasio.blogspot.mx/2015/04/fotos-visita-episcopal-monsenhor-faure.html

In the above photos Bishop Faure does not impose his hands on them while anointing them with chrism, as is the correct way. He merely has his fingers extended alongside their heads without touching them while his thumb does the anointing.

How it should be done:
http://www.fsspx-sudamerica.org/imagenes4/3006.jpg
http://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/styles/news_big/public/events/confirmations.jpg?itok=qZVF8aEm
http://laportelatine.org/international/communic/presse/afrique/2013/confirmations_tissier_nigeria_130602/conf001.jpg

1) Why does Bishop Faure omit this important part of the rite?

2) Why does Bishop Williamson give the permission to priests to confirm? How can he do this? Archbishop Lefebvre, even before he consecrated 4 auxiliary bishops, never did this.

Per Fr. Chazal, in Austrailasia Report IV:
"His Lordship is delegating us the power to confirm, as done in mission territory or in time of persecution."
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42407882-fr-chazal-australasia-report-iv

And I recall that Bishop Williamson also gave Dom Tomas Aquino in Brazil the same "delegation" at one point.

richard · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2015, 08:32:42 AM »

Quote from: Green Scapular

http://associacaosantoatanasio.blogspot.mx/2015/04/fotos-visita-episcopal-monsenhor-faure.html

In the above photos Bishop Faure does not impose his hands on them while anointing them with chrism, as is the correct way. He merely has his fingers extended alongside their heads without touching them while his thumb does the anointing.

How it should be done:
http://www.fsspx-sudamerica.org/imagenes4/3006.jpg
http://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/styles/news_big/public/events/confirmations.jpg?itok=qZVF8aEm
http://laportelatine.org/international/communic/presse/afrique/2013/confirmations_tissier_nigeria_130602/conf001.jpg

1) Why does Bishop Faure omit this important part of the rite?

2) Why does Bishop Williamson give the permission to priests to confirm? How can he do this? Archbishop Lefebvre, even before he consecrated 4 auxiliary bishops, never did this.

Per Fr. Chazal, in Austrailasia Report IV:
"His Lordship is delegating us the power to confirm, as done in mission territory or in time of persecution."
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42407882-fr-chazal-australasia-report-iv

And I recall that Bishop Williamson also gave Dom Tomas Aquino in Brazil the same "delegation" at one point.

I was confirmed by a priest in 1965 who was given the authority to do so by our bishop because he had to go to Rome.If it was ok then why is it not ok now?

Peter15and1 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2015, 08:45:46 AM »

Quote from: [i

Rituale Romanum[/i]]6. Then the celebrant confirms them (a bishop wears the mitre at this time, and so does a higher prelate, such as a protonotary apostolic), as they kneel in line, first the males then the females. When one row is finished all rise and others kneel in place, and so on till the end. The celebrant asks the name of each one as he is presented by the godfather or the godmother; and dipping the tip of his thumb in chrism he confirms in the following way: laying his right hand on the head of the recipient he marks with his thumb the sign of the cross on the person's forehead, while saying the first part of the form up to the word cross inclusive, and goes on with the rest of the form, making a threefold sign of the cross over him at the places indicated:

N., I seal you with the sign of the + cross; and I confirm you with the chrism that sanctifies; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.

Then he strikes the confirmed lightly on the cheek, saying:

Peace be with you.

{This last action is a token of the kiss of peace given in earlier times; but it now has an added significance of reminding the confirmed to be ready at all times to suffer for the faith.}

Green Scapular · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2015, 08:55:43 AM »

Quote from: Peter15and1

Quote from: [i
Rituale Romanum[/i]]6. Then the celebrant confirms them (a bishop wears the mitre at this time, and so does a higher prelate, such as a protonotary apostolic), as they kneel in line, first the males then the females. When one row is finished all rise and others kneel in place, and so on till the end. The celebrant asks the name of each one as he is presented by the godfather or the godmother; and dipping the tip of his thumb in chrism he confirms in the following way: laying his right hand on the head of the recipient he marks with his thumb the sign of the cross on the person's forehead, while saying the first part of the form up to the word cross inclusive, and goes on with the rest of the form, making a threefold sign of the cross over him at the places indicated:

N., I seal you with the sign of the + cross; and I confirm you with the chrism that sanctifies; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.

Then he strikes the confirmed lightly on the cheek, saying:

Peace be with you.

{This last action is a token of the kiss of peace given in earlier times; but it now has an added significance of reminding the confirmed to be ready at all times to suffer for the faith.}

That is exactly the problem. Bishop Faure apparently did not do that.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm
"the most generally accepted view is that the anointing and the imposition of hands conjointly are the matter. The "imposition", however, is not that with which the rite begins but the laying on of hands which takes place in the act of anointing"

Again, it is the MATTER of the sacrament!
Catechism St. Pius X http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm#Sacraments
4 Q. What is the matter of this sacrament?
A. The matter of this sacrament, besides the imposition of hands by the bishop, is the anointing of the forehead of the baptised with sacred chrism; and for this reason it is also called the sacrament of Chrism, that is Anointing.

Green Scapular · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2015, 09:36:10 AM »

Even Novus Ordo Bishop Bergoglio imposed his hand while anointing...

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** June 24, 2015, 11:19:43 AM »

Quote from: Green Scapular

http://associacaosantoatanasio.blogspot.mx/2015/04/fotos-visita-episcopal-monsenhor-faure.html

In the above photos Bishop Faure does not impose his hands on them while anointing them with chrism, as is the correct way. He merely has his fingers extended alongside their heads without touching them while his thumb does the anointing.

How it should be done:
http://www.fsspx-sudamerica.org/imagenes4/3006.jpg
http://sspx.ca/sites/sspx/files/styles/news_big/public/events/confirmations.jpg?itok=qZVF8aEm
http://laportelatine.org/international/communic/presse/afrique/2013/confirmations_tissier_nigeria_130602/conf001.jpg

1) Why does Bishop Faure omit this important part of the rite?

2) Why does Bishop Williamson give the permission to priests to confirm? How can he do this? Archbishop Lefebvre, even before he consecrated 4 auxiliary bishops, never did this.

Per Fr. Chazal, in Austrailasia Report IV:
"His Lordship is delegating us the power to confirm, as done in mission territory or in time of persecution."
http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/42407882-fr-chazal-australasia-report-iv

And I recall that Bishop Williamson also gave Dom Tomas Aquino in Brazil the same "delegation" at one point.

Why don't you write to Bishop Faure instead of whining to the entire Internet about it.

He hasn't been a bishop that long, you know. Maybe it was an honest mistake -- regardless of how serious.

Once I was at a baptism and heard the SSPX priest say, "Ego te baptismo" -- the correct words are "Ego te baptizo". This wasn't a young OR new priest. Quite a seasoned one, as a matter of fact. I assume it wouldn't affect the validity, since it's "close enough".

Graham · « **Reply #6 on:** June 24, 2015, 11:28:17 AM »

It was probably a mistake. Someone who knows how should notify him.

For #2, Fr. Chazal's report is dated June 2014. If I recall, he was delegated after Bp. Williamson was forbidden entry to Australia at the last minute by the government. (Due to SSPX squealing? One hesitates to affirm it, but they're the group most likely to have knowledge of and to oppose his visit. SSPX priests in Canada have threatened to report +W to the state.) Such eventualities are, of course, part of why +F was consecrated.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** June 24, 2015, 11:32:09 AM »

Quote from: Green Scapular

http://associacaosantoatanasio.blogspot.mx/2015/04/fotos-visita-episcopal-monsenhor-faure.html

In the above photos Bishop Faure does not impose his hands on them while anointing them with chrism, as is the correct way. He merely has his fingers extended alongside their heads without touching them while his thumb does the anointing.

You know, Green Scapular, you really take the cake.

People like you accuse the Resistance of "muck raking" on the SSPX -- digging up problems where there aren't any.

But you are doing *precisely that* in your fight against the Resistance.

I looked at the photos -- I didn't see the problem you describe. It seems that you're getting out your protractor and compass, to check the angle of the priest's hand as he does the anointing of the forehead with his thumb.

It looks fine to me. His hand is sufficiently over the person's head, considering his thumb has things to do. He hasn't done thousands of Confirmations yet, like the 4 +Lefebvre bishops have. Maybe he'll get a bit better at keeping his thumb pointed towards "7 o clock" so the fingers will be pointing straight up, over the person's head a bit better. It's not intuitive. Try it yourself. Take your thumb and pretend to anoint the air in front of you with Chrism. Your first attempt will be to do it naturally, with your thumb basically straight up and down -- watch where your fingers point.

I think +Faure was reading the Latin rubrics to do the Confirmation as best he could -- he probably didn't watch videos or talk with fellow bishops on "tips" on how to do the best possible job. Or maybe he did; who knows.

You're like one of those people who "does the math" when a young couple's first baby was born. Heaven help them if the baby is born early/premature!

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** June 24, 2015, 11:37:12 AM »

Here are the pictures in question.

In "56" I think he's about to give him the slap -- he's not anointing him in that picture.

Another point -- maybe these still shots are capturing as he's finishing the anointing, and he lets his fingers go to a more natural position towards the end.

At any rate, has anyone on here actually taken the Theological course "de defectibus" ("on defects") which covers the various Sacraments and what is required for validity?

My gut feeling is that as long as those fingers are over the person's head at all, you're good.

The bishop doesn't have to be super nimble with his hands or double jointed to properly administer the Sacrament.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2015, 12:17:52 PM »

Quote from: Green Scapular

So should resisters go by Matthew's "gut feeling" about what is good enough, or should they expect a traditional bishop to follow the ritual precisely and exactly?

The question should be repeated: Have you made any effort to express this concern to the Bishop himself?

What purpose does it serve to discuss a new bishop's possible mistakes with us rather than simply passing the information on him?

Green Scapular · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2015, 12:31:53 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Green Scapular
So should resisters go by Matthew's "gut feeling" about what is good enough, or should they expect a traditional bishop to follow the ritual precisely and exactly?

The question should be repeated: Have you made any effort to express this concern to the Bishop himself?

What purpose does it serve to discuss a new bishop's possible mistakes with us rather than simply passing the information on him?

Hopefully someone reading this will promptly bring this to his attention.

The sacrament's matter has been publicly done incorrectly. Do those people need to be conditionally confirmed? It is a critical once-in-a-lifetime sacrament!

The point is that the new bishop failed to follow an essential requirement in the performance of the very office for which he was consecrated. Not good.

Who was responsible for properly training him in his new duties? Someone who himself has had a public instance of not following sacramental rubrics. Remember the conditional ordination of Fr. Iglesias where the investiture part was simply skipped or done invisibly?

Bishop Williamson knows how to impose hands while annonting. He should have taught Bishop Faure how to do it.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2015, 12:42:51 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Green Scapular
So should resisters go by Matthew's "gut feeling" about what is good enough, or should they expect a traditional bishop to follow the ritual precisely and exactly?

The question should be repeated: Have you made any effort to express this concern to the Bishop himself?

What purpose does it serve to discuss a new bishop's possible mistakes with us rather than simply passing the information on him?

For Green Scapular, anything to score a point for "the team" or cost "the other team" a touchdown is fair play.

It's all team spirit for him.

In other words, he'll do anything and everything to discredit the Resistance.

Pretty desperate if you ask me.

Remember, Our Lord laid out very precise guidelines for fraternal correction.

1. Correct the person (privately)
2. Bring others with you and correct him again, so every word is coming from 3+ mouths in unison -- it has more force.
3. Tell the Church. If they won't hear the Church, consider them an infidel or heathen.

I'll grant that in 2015, "tell the Church" would be "tell CathInfo" or "post it on the Internet", since the institutional Church is in complete disarray and in a state of being conquered.

But to jump right to #3 so you "won't lose your chance" to discredit the Resistance -- that shows bad will.

Green Scapular · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:08:19 PM »

Matthew,

You are derailing, but I will take the bait this once.

Did you ever go directly to Bishop Fellay with your concerns about him? Did you go see him with a few buddies?

Did you talk to Fr. de la Motte in private before posting this?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/87-year-old-denied-communion-for-hosting-Bp-Williamson

Did you talk to the seminary rector in private before posting this?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Changes-at-the-SSPX-seminary-in-Winona

And on and on...

JPaul · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:31:04 PM »

Quote from: Green Scapular

So should resisters go by Matthew's "gut feeling" about what is good enough, or should they expect a traditional bishop to follow the ritual precisely and exactly?

Hogwash! In all of those pictures above the Bishop appears to be touching the confirmand with the tip of one or more fingers.

Do you want to complain about something important? Read Bishop Fellay's Doctinal Declaration of 2012, and then listen to his lame defense of the same, and then complain all that you want about something of substance.

What would it matter that he had his entire hand on your forehead, if he is a modernist?

Don · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2015, 01:48:11 PM »

Viewing angles can easily give the wrong impression as can the timing of a picture when theres some movement involved. in these pictures from Australian confirmations we can see from the other side of the head that the bishops hand is touching the head.

http://cor-mariae./thread/4120/photos-confirmation-ceremony-victoria