Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Negatory.  It can be matter without being essential matter; those are two different things.

If the Sacrament remains valid in the Eastern Rite without imposition then it's not matter essential to the Sacrament.  St. Thomas therefore clearly had it right.

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Negatory.  It can be matter without being essential matter; those are two different things.

If the Sacrament remains valid in the Eastern Rite without imposition then it's not matter essential to the Sacrament.  St. Thomas therefore clearly had it right.

We are always obliged to follow the safest course regarding the sacraments.

Since "the most generally accepted view" is that the matter of the sacrament of Confirmation consists, in the Roman rite, of both the anointing and the imposition of hands, I believe this creates a positive and probable doubt in the validity of those confirmations in Minas Gerais. But considering that I have had no formal theological training, I cannot be certain, which is why I said that this matter must be dealt with by those responsible.

All this is ridiculous and wicked.

One cannot judge just by some pictures. In this one he clearly imposes the right hand:



While here he does not.



BUT WAIT! BECAUSE HE ALREADY DID:



More nice pictures here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.785168668248945&type=1&l=bef41a0937

Goodbye, ironically-named "lamb".

You're banned for a venomous, hate-filled outburst at the moderator. No forum would put up with that.

CathInfo tries to tolerate a wide variety of members -- the widest possible, actually. But it's not some kind of magical land where matter and anti-matter can coexist without an explosion -- or, to choose an analogy less fantastic, Israelis and Palestinians living happily together.

When you involve contentious groups, you can only be so "open" about membership. I've learned that the hard way running CathInfo as long as I have. For example, I could allow dogmatic home-aloners here (the extremists), and I'd have 5 more members -- except they'd anathematize each other, as well as chase off hundreds of sane, normal members. So there's no universe existing where I could have those 5 home aloners AND my existing membership.

My point is that it's not realistic to attempt to allow "everyone" to be on a forum. It simply doesn't work in practice. I do my best to be as patient, thick-skinned, and tolerant as possible -- but even that has limits. As far as I know, every forum on the Internet is intolerant of venomous outbursts hurled at the site owner.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my challenge: show me just ONE forum where you can cuss out the site owner (or say he's bad-willed, evil, going to Hell, etc.) and not get banned. I'm still waiting. Crickets are chirping.

CathInfo tries to tolerate a wide variety of members -- the widest possible, actually.

I can attest to this.  Matthew puts up with me and my "Eastern leaning ways."  I get a bit argumentative and cemented in my opinions but I do try to catch myself before I go "too far"  in offending a large number of people.  I'm not always successful, however.  

Thank you, Matthew.