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.

Moderator response:
No, I'm not a liberal, but you're a muck-raking nit picker. See, we can both call names.
You weren't there; you're only looking at still shots which are, frankly, ambiguous at best.
And I don't know where you got the "1 year". I was at the seminary for 3 years under Bishop Williamson, 1/2 a year under Fr. Le Roux.
Yes, the matter has to be there for the Sacrament, but are you really more certain than me about how much finger has to be on what part of the head? I seriously doubt it. You have studied "de defectibus" about as much as I have.


Are you a bit of a liberal Matthew? You sure seem to have a pretty loose idea of traditional rubrics, for someone who attended Winona for 1 year under Bp. Williamson and runs his own resistance chapel.... You, above anyone, should be aware that when it comes to the sacraments, there is absolutely NO room for doubt. And it's not very gentlemanly, to say the least, for you to insult Green Scapular by accusing him of whinging.... He was making a very valid point and it is perfectly clear from all of the photos that Bp. Faure is definitely NOT laying his right hand on the confirmands head WHILE annointing him/her with his thumb!

Some more proof that Green Scapular's faculty of reason is somewhat impeded (emotion? cult loyalty? you be the judge):

He just made a snide comment about CathInfo's daily unique visitors. He was way off (actual unique visitors count, per AWstats, is 1000/day -- but I digress. That's my word against his, and beside the point.)

Ok, so for the sake of discussion, let's assume Green Scapular is correct: CathInfo is a rinky dink hole in the road. So let's apply our reason here:

Why does Green Scapular continue to haunt the place?

A) Does he enjoy the company/information here? Does he fit in?
Or
B) Does he hang out here despite himself, purely because it's so popular -- it's where all the Trads are?

It has to be one of those two -- or why is he here? Is he some kind of masochist or glutton for punishment?

Based on the fact he HATES the Resistance, I have a hard time believing it's A).
But if you take his statements at face value (i.e., that CathInfo has an insignificant reach) it really makes you wonder why he "wastes his time" here.

I know that Bishop Williamson made a good decision in consecrating Bishop Faure when I see the people who ignore what the current leaders of the SSPX are doing and spend time over-analyzing everything that Bishop Faure does.  It means he has hit a nerve with them, just by the fact that he is here to take control of this and keep faithful Catholics from having to be without a bishop to ordain priests.  Pretty important since we already know that the current leadership of the SSPX has no plans to consecrate a bishop and has expressed this when they "denounced" Bishop Faure's consecration.  With the Neo-SSPX refusing to maintain the number of 4 bishops, one would be justified in questioning if once the number of bishops are reduced to a precarious number like one or two, wouldn't they probably then just stop ordaining also.  After all, the ordinations are "illicit", so there has to be a problem that Rome sees in their self-contradiction in "denouncing" episcopal consecrations but then continuing to ordain priests "illicitly".  Only a naive person fails to see where this is going.

Confirmations in the Eastern Rites always have been recognized as valid by the Church. Clearly the bishops hand on top of the forehead is not necessary, else they wouldn't be applying the chrism with a brush or q-tip. Btw, I believe most of these are priests pictured below.














Who should I trust in this matter, tradition or some random lady who seems to know more about the Sacraments than priests and bishops who've been practicing it the better part of their lives?? I'm so confused!!!

Quote from: Matthew

So it's "Resistance crisis over".

No, not over.  Just exposed.  

You resisters follow a bishop who chose and consecrated someone to be a bishop who didn't even know how to do a confirmation correctly (something any simple priest should have known, as it is regarding the proper matter of a SACRAMENT).  You resisters follow a bishop who did not follow proper rubrics when he did a conditional ordination of a strange sedevacantist priest who shortly thereafter returned to the Novus Ordo.  You resisters follow a bishop who, when he botched up the words of a confirmation himself, brushed aside the correction by the assistant priest and continued on without redoing it.  You resisters follow a bishop who believes Archbishop Lefebvre was tainted with liberalism.  You resisters follow a bishop who is a conspiracy theorist, and promoter of Poem of the Man-God.  You resisters follow a bishop who follows and publishes and was secretly lead by a false apparition and false mystic for years.  Should I go on?  

THIS is the man whose judgment you trust enough to stake your salvation to?  WAKE UP before you all lose your souls in following a a pied piper!!!

And THAT, Matthew, that is the reason I post on here.

I will trust my salvation to +Williamson way before I would trust to the Cult leader +Fellay.

Green Scapular only seeks to follow the current leadership of the SSPX.  He knows nothing at all about being a traditionalist from what I have seen.  It's not about principles for him.  

Reply to the original two questions:

1) In the article "Confirmation" the Catholic Encyclopedia says this about the matter of that particular sacrament:

There has been much discussion among theologians as to what constitutes the essential matter of this sacrament. Some, e.g. Aureolus and Petavius, held that it consists in the imposition of hands. Others, with St. Thomas, Bellarmine, and Maldonatus, maintain that it is the anointing with chrism. According to a third opinion (Morinus, Tapper) either anointing or imposition of hands suffices. Finally, 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.

It also says this about the Eastern rites:

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words: "the sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost."

The conclusion is that according to the generally accepted view the imposition of hands is part of the essential matter in the Roman rite, and in the Eastern rites it is not.

Therefore, when a bishop confirms in the Roman rite, that means it is essential for validity that he imposes his hands on the head of the confirmants.

It is clearly visible in some of the photos that Bp. Faure touches the head of the confirmant with only his thumb, and that his other fingers and his palm do not touch the head of the confirmant, which means that there is no imposition of hands.

Because of that, it is possible that it is necessary to conditionally confirm all those people from Minas Gerais. This must be brought to the attention of those with greater knowledge of "de defectibus", who could then make a more secure judgment.

Regarding the case Matthew mentioned, of a priest who said "Ego te baptizmo..." (I baptism you...) instead of "Ego te baptizo..." (I baptize you...) the question is whether the alteration caused the meaning of the form to change (according to Art. 20 of the "De defectibus" of the Council of Trent) - if it did, the sacrament was not conferred. This is again something which must be brought to the attention of those with greater knowledge of "de defectibus".



2) Depending on whether the Resistance bishops recognize the 1917 or the 1983 Code (I don't know - does anyone know which they recognize?), according to the 1917 Code (Canon 782) an ordinary priest can only validly confirm if he receives an indult from the pope, while according to the 1983 Code an ordinary priest can only validly confirm if he receives an indult from his ordinary or in danger of death.

If the Resistance bishops recognize the 1917 Code, then they are unable to give permission to confirm to priests, since only the Apostolic See can do that, so any confirmation administered by those priests would be invalid.

If the Resistance bishops recognize the 1983 Code, then they are also unable to give permission to confirm to priests, because only diocesan bishops and other prelates with ordinary jurisdiction can give that permission, and traditionalist bishops do not have jurisdiction, so any confirmation administered by those priests would be invalid.

These are the relevant canons of the 1983 Code:

Can.  882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbiter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Can.  883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbiter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbiter.

Can.  884 §1. The diocesan bishop is to administer confirmation personally or is to take care that another bishop administers it. If necessity requires it, he can grant the faculty to one or more specific presbiters, who are to administer this sacrament.

Glad to see that by now he has understood his earlier error and has corrected himself.

Then you can rest well tonight ... no longer grieving for the poor souls who may have been denied this great grace.

...


Since I know that was your motivation for bringing it up in the first place.  It certainly couldn't have been Fellayist politics.