Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Giovanni Berto on September 08, 2025, 05:51:40 PM
-
I was talking the other day to a Sedevacantist independent priest (a "totalist", as far as I know), and we ended up talking about a person I know who has received Confirmation from a SSPX priest in order to get married.
He said that such Confirmations are of doubtful validity, since when Pius XII made it possible for certain priests to confirm, it was a personal priviledge, and not even the diocesan bishop could give it to another priest. The authority to do this belonged to the Pope only.
As I understand it, he was saying that the state of "sede vacante" is not enough of a reason to presume that any priest can validly confer Confirmation.
The more I think of it, the less it makes sense. As far as I know, Confirmation has never been a Sacrament that requires jurisdiction to be valid, as is the case with Marriage and Penitence. Eastern Rite priests confer Confirmation on babies after Baptism. Any Eastern Catholic priest can do it, as far as I know. So, it does not seem that Confirmation is a Sacrament exclusive to bishops, as Holy Orders are. Priests are sacramentally able to confer Confirmation. Otherwise, Pius XII would not have given some of them authority do so.
Is the opinion that priestly Confirmations are doubtful predominant among Sedevacantists? Does it make sense? Is it really doubtful?
If the wise and knowledgeable could share some thoughts on this, I would be grateful. The others' opinions are welcome too.;)
-
If you look up the sacrament of confirmation in any religion book, it'll say a bishop is the ordinary minister. Yes, some priests got special indults to do so, but it's just not known how exactly that works and whether the sacrament is valid without the indult or not.
Sedevacantist priests do not give the sacrament of confirmation except to someone on their deathbed, as far as I know. There's just no reason to take a chance on validity, since bishops can do so and there is no question about validity when they do it.
-
There was an interesting thread on this a while back: https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/fr-raphael-arrizaga-begins-administering-confirmations/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/fr-raphael-arrizaga-begins-administering-confirmations/)
-
I was talking the other day to a Sedevacantist independent priest (a "totalist", as far as I know), and we ended up talking about a person I know who has received Confirmation from a SSPX priest in order to get married.
He said that such Confirmations are of doubtful validity, since when Pius XII made it possible for certain priests to confirm, it was a personal priviledge, and not even the diocesan bishop could give it to another priest. The authority to do this belonged to the Pope only.
As I understand it, he was saying that the state of "sede vacante" is not enough of a reason to presume that any priest can validly confer Confirmation.
The more I think of it, the less it makes sense. As far as I know, Confirmation has never been a Sacrament that requires jurisdiction to be valid, as is the case with Marriage and Penitence. Eastern Rite priests confer Confirmation on babies after Baptism. Any Eastern Catholic priest can do it, as far as I know. So, it does not seem that Confirmation is a Sacrament exclusive to bishops, as Holy Orders are. Priests are sacramentally able to confer Confirmation. Otherwise, Pius XII would not have given some of them authority do so.
Is the opinion that priestly Confirmations are doubtful predominant among Sedevacantists? Does it make sense? Is it really doubtful?
If the wise and knowledgeable could share some thoughts on this, I would be grateful. The others' opinions are welcome too.;)
Another thing to consider is, if a priest could just automatically give confirmation, then why would the pope have to give anyone the power to do so?
Basically, it might be valid but no one knows exactly what happens when a priest confers it without papal authorization, so they just play it safe.
Is the opinion that priestly Confirmations are doubtful predominant among Sedevacantists? Does it make sense? Is it really doubtful?
Yes. No major sedevacantist organization has priests confer confirmation outside danger of death.
-
Confirmation has never been a Sacrament that requires jurisdiction to be valid, as is the case with Marriage and Penitence.
.
There isn't the same necessity for a priest to confirm as there is for him to hear confessions and administer matrimony, so he can't really assume permission to confirm the way he can for penance and matrimony.
-
Extensive research has been conducted into this question. Trad clergy cannot validly confirm, and this incapacity has to do with orders, not jurisdiction.
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/fr-raphael-arrizaga-begins-administering-confirmations/
^^ this thread is a good survey and discussion of the theology surrounding this matter.
-
Confirmation isn’t required for the validity of marriage… so why would an SSPX priest be worried about someone being confirmed? Aren’t exceptions to the norm (Confirmation before Matrimony) allowed when there are so few Bishops to Confirm the Faithful?
-
.
There isn't the same necessity for a priest to confirm as there is for him to hear confessions and administer matrimony, so he can't really assume permission to confirm the way he can for penance and matrimony.
Confirmation, while highly desirable, is not absolutely necessary for salvation. It does not remove sin the way penance and extreme unction do, and if an adult were to die without it, assuming that no contempt for the sacrament had kept them from seeking to be confirmed, their salvation would be in no danger whatsoever.
The gifts of the Holy Ghost are better to have than not to have, but again, they are not absolutely necessary. I would be interested to know if confirmation was required prior to marriage before the Vatican II era, nowadays, if they can create a new hoop to jump through, they will. This whole RCIA/OCIA/whatever business makes people go through endless rigamarole, when what they need is to be received into the Church and to receive her sacraments sooner rather than later. I suppose Newchurch doesn't think there's any urgency to the matter.
-
I did not know about that old thread, otherwise I would not have started this one.
I have read some of it, and it looks that it is a pretty messy subject.
All things considered, I would not trust a Confirmation conferred by a priest. It is good to know that the consensus among Sedevacantists is taking the safer route.
-
I believe that priets can validly confirm given the state of crisis in the Church. If priests can confirm at all, whether with or without permission, approval, authorization, such as Eastern Rite priests who confirm even in ordinary times, then the power is present in the Holy Orders of the priest, even if he's not the ordinary minister of the Sacrament.
-
Just asking out of total ignorance here, does the SSPX ever allow priests to confer confirmation (aside from cases such as danger of death of the confirmand)?
The SSPX bishops don't enjoy ordinary jurisdiction, and it is at least doubtful that they have the power to authorize priests to confer it. Confirmation conferred by their bishops is obviously valid, in that the power to confirm inheres to the order of bishop qua bishop.
-
Just asking out of total ignorance here, does the SSPX ever allow priests to confer confirmation (aside from cases such as danger of death of the confirmand)?
The SSPX bishops don't enjoy ordinary jurisdiction, and it is at least doubtful that they have the power to authorize priests to confer it. Confirmation conferred by their bishops is obviously valid, in that the power to confirm inheres to the order of bishop qua bishop.
Yeah, I've had a similar question about those who say that bishops can confirm without any jurisdiction or authority ... whereas priests cannot, since the Traditional bishops lack the jurisdiction also.
-
There is no necessity for priests to confirm today, since basically everyone sooner or later will be able to receive confirmation from a bishop. Traditional bishops travel around and confer confirmations. It might involve waiting a couple of years, but there is no inherent urgency in receiving the sacrament of confirmation. And no, it does not need to be received before getting married.
Since it is sacrilegious to receive a sacrament that is not certainly valid, and confirmation from a bishop is certainly valid while coming from a priest it is not certain, that is why priest confirmations are not done by sedevacantist priests.
-
Yeah, I've had a similar question about those who say that bishops can confirm without any jurisdiction or authority ... whereas priests cannot, since the Traditional bishops lack the jurisdiction also.
.
I think there is no question that a bishop can confer confirmation validly even without any jurisdiction, as it is a power inherent in the episcopacy. But the fact that priests need some sort of authorization to confirm raises various questions as to why this is necessary, and whether it is valid without this authorization.
-
I think there is no question that a bishop can confer confirmation validly even without any jurisdiction, as it is a power inherent in the episcopacy. But the fact that priests need some sort of authorization to confirm raises various questions as to why this is necessary, and whether it is valid without this authorization.
We think there's "no question" mostly because that's what everyone has assumed, but if a priest can under some circuмstances confirm, that means that it's within the power of orders. So what's missing? Authorization, authority, jurisdicition. But then somehow this power is in the bishop's orders in such a way as to not require authorization, authority, jurisdiction?
Take another Sacrament. Confession. Priests normally can't absolve from sin if they lack jurisdiction, authorization ... from a bishop (with jurisdiction). Priests cannot receive authorization to validly absolve from sin from some auxiliary bishop, NOR can said auxiliar bishop validly absolve from sin without himself having authorization with an actual bishop with jurisdiction.
So you'd have to say ...
Bishops Orders = power to confirm + intrinsic authority to confirm
Priest's Orders = power to confirm - intrinsic authority to confirm
and yet with Confession ...
Bishops Orders = power to absolve - instrinsic authority to absolve
Priest's Orders = power to absolve - instrinsic authority to absolve
Why is the authority to confirm intrinsically within episcopal orders but not the authority to absolve? That has never been satisfactorily answered.
-
We think there's "no question" mostly because that's what everyone has assumed, but if a priest can under some circuмstances confirm, that means that it's within the power of orders. So what's missing? Authorization, authority, jurisdicition. But then somehow this power is in the bishop's orders in such a way as to not require authorization, authority, jurisdiction?
Take another Sacrament. Confession. Priests normally can't absolve from sin if they lack jurisdiction, authorization ... from a bishop (with jurisdiction). Priests cannot receive authorization to validly absolve from sin from some auxiliary bishop, NOR can said auxiliar bishop validly absolve from sin without himself having authorization with an actual bishop with jurisdiction.
So you'd have to say ...
Bishops Orders = power to confirm + intrinsic authority to confirm
Priest's Orders = power to confirm - intrinsic authority to confirm
and yet with Confession ...
Bishops Orders = power to absolve - instrinsic authority to absolve
Priest's Orders = power to absolve - instrinsic authority to absolve
Why is the authority to confirm intrinsically within episcopal orders but not the authority to absolve? That has never been satisfactorily answered.
Have to give credit where credit is due, boss. You make a decent case here.
-
Just asking out of total ignorance here, does the SSPX ever allow priests to confer confirmation (aside from cases such as danger of death of the confirmand)?
The SSPX bishops don't enjoy ordinary jurisdiction, and it is at least doubtful that they have the power to authorize priests to confer it. Confirmation conferred by their bishops is obviously valid, in that the power to confirm inheres to the order of bishop qua bishop.
Yes, they do. This is the exact case that I have described.
When this person was doing the paperwork to get married, the SSPX priests realized that he had a doubtful baptism, so he was baptized again, and, as there was no time to wait for the bishop's visit before the wedding, he was confirmed just after baptism by the priest.
-
A very similar case in our mission 25 years ago. The bride to be was a cradle SSPX, but the man was very new to Catholicism, from paganism, but soon he was very serious about the Faith. So he got baptized, a month later they got married. He was confirmed about 6 months later by +Williamson. The SSPX wouldn't even entertain the possibilty of a simple priest doing the Confirmation.
Curious: Doesn't the neoSspx have sufficient BISHOPS?
-
Have to give credit where credit is due, boss. You make a decent case here.
So, I'm open to being proven wrong here and perfectly happy to retract my opinion ... it's just that I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation for or articulation of how this works.
Absolution ->
-- Power of Orders + Power of Jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction: Explicitly Granted only by bishop with jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction: Explicitly Granted by Church Law in specific cases (danger of death)
-- Jurisdiction: Implicitly Granted by Church Law (due to crisis, salus animarum)
Confirmation ->
-- Power of Orders + Power of Jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction: Explicitly Granted only by bishop with jurisdiction
-- Jurisdiction: Explicilty Granted by Church Law in specific cases (danger of death), or Law of Eatern Churches (Eastern Rite priests)
-- Jurisdiction: Implicitly CANNOT BE GRANTED
So the only difference is we have SOMEthing going on (from those who advocate that position) where the only difference is that they claim that the Jursdiction / Authority / Delegation cannot be granted implicitly due to the crisis in the Church.
I know the proponents of it have used the term "Delegation" to make it sound like it's different, but then what is this "Delegation" ... some weird thing that's in a gray area between Power of Orders and Power of Jurisdiction. What is that tertium quid that is not EITHER Power of Orders OR Power of Jurisdiction?
Unless this can be explained, I don't know why the authority / jurisdiction / delegation for Confirmation cannot be supplied due to the crisis, just as it is for absolution. PERHAPS one could try to argue that it isn't supplied since there's less "need" for it, but where is the degree of necessity defined? Is Confirmation superfluous and unnecessary and meaningless? Or does it provide great assistance in the salvation of souls? Since there are SOME Traditional bishops out there, is there no need because, well, if you wait a couple years, you might be able to get on that circuit? What of those priests before SSPX had bishops who had no access to bishops? What of those priest who maybe aren't on good terms with SSPX or any of the +Thuc line bishops? Trying to assert that there's not sufficient "necessity" for Confirmation not only seems rather subjective, and appears to diminish the necessity of this great Sacrament, but it also still doesn't explain any difference in PRINCIPLE to how Confession works (as this is a matter of practical application).
-
Here was a lengthy and hotly-debated thread on the subject before ...
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/fr-raphael-arrizaga-begins-administering-confirmations/
There's a link in the first post to this article here ...
https://benedictinos.blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/pdf_the-extraordinary-minister-of-confirmation.pdf
I found the case made there to be fairly persuasive.
-
From what I have seen on the other thread, the big difference between confirmation and absolution is that the theology behind absolution has been very clear and precise for centuries, whereas we can see a lot of quotes by pre-conciliar theologians on priestly confirmations and they seem rather lost and unable to explain how this "delegation" works.
The matter seems way too confusing to me. I would not risk getting a confirmation done by a priest if I could get a bishop within a reasonable amout of time.
-
From what I have seen on the other thread, the big difference between confirmation and absolution is that the theology behind absolution has been very clear and precise for centuries, whereas we can see a lot of quotes by pre-conciliar theologians on priestly confirmations and they seem rather lost and unable to explain how this "delegation" works.
The matter seems way too confusing to me. I would not risk getting a confirmation done by a priest if I could get a bishop within a reasonable amout of time.
I don't think there's any more risk than with Confession and Holy Matrimony. No one has explained how there's some tertium quid other than the Power or Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction. Until such a time, there's no difference whatsoever between Absolution / Matrimony and Confirmation. You're fanning the flames of negative doubt FUD here by avoiding "risk". There's "risk" in Matrimony where you might be living in sin if you got that wrong. There's risk in Confession also. I don't see how there's any more or different risk whatsoever with Confirmation. There's no such thing as "Delegation", where you can somehow transfer ad hoc a Power of Orders that isn't already in herent in the priest's Orders simply by virtue of his ordination to the priesthood. That's what they're grasping at with "delegation", but it's nonsensical, and really is a made-up term. If the Church can explicilty authorize it in danger of death or in mission terrotiries (as the Council of Trent did ... are we not in missionary status today), and if Eastern Rite priests can do it as if they were the Ordinary ministers of the Sacrament ... then there's not a lick of difference I can see there. If a bishop had to delegate some part of the Power of Orders, the Church law could never simply auto-delegate it in the case of danger of death. But if the Church can auto-delegate it in danger of death, then the Church can also auto-delegate it in other cases of necessity.
-
From what I have seen on the other thread, the big difference between confirmation and absolution is that the theology behind absolution has been very clear and precise for centuries, whereas we can see a lot of quotes by pre-conciliar theologians on priestly confirmations and they seem rather lost and unable to explain how this "delegation" works.
The matter seems way too confusing to me. I would not risk getting a confirmation done by a priest if I could get a bishop within a reasonable amout of time.
Hi, GB:
IIRC, on the other thread somebody quoted Pope Benedict XIII saying that a Latin Rite priest without papal delegation cannot validly confirm. That's an authoritative source that should settle the matter.
The reason behind that has to do with the fact that a simple priest is only ordained for the physical Body of Christ (the Eucharist) and all his powers are directed towards it. For example, he has the power of absolution so that the faithful who go to confession with him may afterwards go to communion. On the other hand, a bishop is ordained for the mystical Body of Christ (the Church). The sacrament of confirmation is an ecclesial function (raising soldiers for the army of Christ) over which only a bishop has power.
The pope may give the power to confirm to a simple priest because "Papa habet plenitudinem potestatis in Ecclesia" - St. Thomas.
Here are a couple of studies that show the great difference between the powers of priest and the powers of a bishop and that, consequently, a simple priest without papal delegation does not have the power to confirm.
-
Eastern Rite priests can confirm babies immediately after Baptism.
Can they give confirmation at other times? I think not.
-
So, I'm open to being proven wrong here and perfectly happy to retract my opinion ... it's just that I've not yet seen a satisfactory explanation for or articulation of how this works.
Hi, Ladislaus:
Check out the studies by Fr. Belmont that I attached to my previous comment on this thread. One of them directly addresses the question of the invalidity of confirmations from a priest without papal delegation. The other article explains more in detail the difference between a priest and a bishop, who's not simply a priest with extra powers but a possessor through his episcopal consecration of a special relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ that a priest lacks. As a consequence of that, a priest cannot validly confirm without papal delegation.
May Our Lady keep you under her mantle!