Are SSPX Confirmations Valid?

[Marilena]

Yeah but the Bishop has to be validly consecrated(? ordained?). For example, Archbishop Lefebvre himself could validly perform confirmations, the four bishops he ordained without papal authority, and any ordained by him or them thereafter, couldn’t.

Presumably there are other bishops who formed the SSPX alongside Lefebvre. They, already being bishops, could validly confirm. Any who were made bishops after the excommunications can’t.

Clear as mud for you there

so your saying that the 4 bishops now who perform confirmations those confirmations are not valid? do you have Vatican documents to back that up specifically? iam not trying to be argumentative, only want proof of statement.
please, bear with me. i like clarification on things i ask oh and one other thing, are you saying that the bishops are not really real bishops because they were not ordained by the pope, and did not have papal approval to be ordained?

 

[johnnykins]

so your saying that the 4 bishops now who perform confirmations those confirmations are not valid? do you have Vatican documents to back that up specifically? iam not trying to be argumentative, only want proof of statement.
please, bear with me. i like clarification on things i ask oh and one other thing, are you saying that the bishops are not really real bishops because they were not ordained by the pope, and did not have papal approval to be ordained?

They are certainly valid - in schism, but VALID.

In part the angst in Rome over the SSPX issue is because they are validly Bishops but in schism having been illicitly consecrated.

 

[Fuerza]

how could confirmation be considered valid if all 4 bishops are excommunicated?[/QUOT

I liken this to a police sniper in a hostage situation (sorry if this example is a little morbid).

A SWAT team is called into a situation in which a hostage taker is making demands and has already harmed several hostages. Fearing for their safety, the police chief gives his best sniper the green light to fire whenever he has a clear shot at the suspect. After a long time has passed without a clear shot presenting itself, the chief decides to take another course of action and retracts the “fire when ready” order. Not even a minute after getting the order to back down, the sniper sees his chance and takes the shot, killing the suspect.

Now think about it. The sniper technically no longer had the authority to fire, but the suspect is just as dead as if he did. In much the same way, once a man is validly ordained, he remains ordained even if his authority is taken away (via excommunication, laicization, etc…). This is why even an excommunicated priest can validly absolve if there is a danger of death. If I remember correctly from Catholic school, a priest is a "priest **forever

in the priestly order of Melchizedek."

Probably not the best analogy, but I believe it gets to the point.

 

[Marilena]

They are certainly valid - in schism, but VALID.

In part the angst in Rome over the SSPX issue is because they are validly Bishops but in schism having been illicitly consecrated.

iam sooo sorry johnny, iam not trying to be obtuse or try to aggravate anyone. only having a hard time trying to sift through the answers here. sigh… one person says one thing, then others say another… its hard to sift through. sorry if you think iam not getting it.

okay, the priest i just spoke to made sense to me, he stated that the confirmations are valid. even though the bishops were
not lawfully ordained, they were ordained. they can give the sacrament of confirmation, marriage, and baptism. interesting.

 

[LilyM]

Papal approbation is not needed for validity of consecrating a Bishop (or any other sacrament) - it’s needed only for licitness.

Thus Greek Orthodox Bishops are validly Bishops, but not licitly so. Likewise the SSPX bishops.

Marilena, there are threads on the SSPX here that have specifically referred to this issue - with documents and everything - do a search.

My understanding is that an Archbishop, such as Lefebvre, does not have an automatic ability to consecrate other bishops as they see fit, but may only do so with Papal approval. Much like a priest can only celebrate some sacraments when given faculties by the local Bishop.

Remember that Lefebvre requested permission to ordain his bishops, which was denied and in fact he was then ordered not to. Why would he request permission if it was unnecessary? And why would the Vatican attempt to stop him if he had unfettered power to ordain other bishops?

 

[johnnykins]

“validity” deal with whether or not the sacrament actually was confected. An invalid Mass is not a Mass at all. An invalid odination is not really an ordination at all- it’s just a ceremony without sacramental effect.

“liceity” deals with whether or not the rules were followed. An illicit Mass is still a Mass. An illicit ordination is still an ordination.

When women are “ordained” it is not an ordination - it is invalid - because the proper matter - a male - was not present even if everything else was OK.

If the host at the Mass is a rice wafer - the Mass is invalid and the rice wafer did not become the Body and Blood of Christ. If, on the other hand, a leavened eastern bread host is used at a Roman Mass where only unleavened bread is allowed, the consecration would be VALID but ILLICIT.

Does that help?

 

[johnnykins]

Marilena, there are threads on the SSPX here that have specifically referred to this issue - with documents and everything - do a search.

My understanding is that an Archbishop, such as Lefebvre, does not have an automatic ability to consecrate other bishops as they see fit, but may only do so with Papal approval. Much like a priest can only celebrate some sacraments when given faculties by the local Bishop.

You are confusing validity with liceity.

 

[johnnykins]

iam sooo sorry johnny, iam not trying to be obtuse or try to aggravate anyone. only having a hard time trying to sift through the answers here. sigh… one person says one thing, then others say another… its hard to sift through. sorry if you think iam not getting it.

I don’t know if it’s obtuseness or what on the part of many in these threads. Validity and liceity are often confused here. In many circles the terms are used lossely and so get confused. You, having asked a very good but very particular question, need to focus on usuing the exact language and concepts or you will never figure it out.

What Lily refers to is an issue of liceity - not validity.

We all know the Greek Orthodox, for example, have valid sacraments but never get Papal approval for anything since they are in schism. Likewise the SSPX. Even if not in schism, the issue you raise is not a concern of validity - unless there is some problem with matter form or intent - it is an issue of whether what was done was properly allowed - liceity

 

[Marilena]

as i stated above:

okay, the priest i just spoke to made sense to me, he stated that the confirmations are valid. even though the bishops were
not lawfully ordained, they were ordained. they can give the sacrament of confirmation, and baptism. interesting.
he also said confession there was valid as well. very interesting. he is a NO priest.

correction, he told me the priests could bless a marriage where one was Catholic and the other not as long as they had a dispensation from the bishop. and in this case, iam assuming the SSPX bishops.

johnny, you made it really clear to me! thank you very much for your insight

 

[johnnykins]

BTW illicitly confecting a sacrament is a grave sin. I am not in any way supporting or defending the SSPX - I am simply stating they are validly Bishops even if illicit ones.

 

[Marilena]

BTW illicitly confecting a sacrament is a grave sin. I am not in any way supporting or defending the SSPX - I am simply stating they are validly Bishops even if illicit ones.

thank you for pointing that out!

 

[johnnykins]

as i stated above:

okay, the priest i just spoke to made sense to me, he stated that the confirmations are valid. even though the bishops were
not lawfully ordained, they were ordained. they can give the sacrament of confirmation, and baptism. interesting.
he also said confession there was valid as well. very interesting. he is a NO priest.

correction, he told me the priests could bless a marriage where one was Catholic and the other not as long as they had a dispensation from the bishop. and in this case, iam assuming the SSPX bishops.

johnny, you made it really clear to me! thank you very much for your insight

From the context I believe your priest was referring to getting a dispensation from the local ordinary in union with Rome and NOT the SSPX Bishop.(Though the SSPX may have their own rules) My guess is that obtaining such a dispensation would be difficult given the recentness of the SSPX schism.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know if it’s obtuseness or what on the part of many in these threads. Validity and liceity are often confused here. In many circles the terms are used lossely and so get confused. You, having asked a very good but very particular question, need to focus on usuing the exact language and concepts or you will never figure it out.

What Lily refers to is an issue of liceity - not validity.

We all know the Greek Orthodox, for example, have valid sacraments but never get Papal approval for anything since they are in schism. Likewise the SSPX. Even if not in schism, the issue you raise is not a concern of validity - unless there is some problem with matter form or intent - it is an issue of whether what was done was properly allowed - liceity

My apologies for muddying the waters
But as you said, illicitly confecting a sacrament is a sin as well. I wouldn’t want that on my own conscience or to put it on the conscience of any priest or Bishop.

 

[chotock]

You are confusing validity with liceity.

Not hard to do, Canon Law can confuse anyone, and generally does.

I was Confirmed by a priest.

Whats sad is I am sponsoring a great young man this year in RCIA. I keep thinking about the Confirmations I have watched in the past few years, kind of feeling left out. Perhaps helping someone else go through the process I will feel more fully confirmed.

BTW does someone like myself who made a simple Profession of Faith, had hands laid on me, blessed, but very simple and quick (took like 10 minutes total) am I fully Confirmed in the same way as those who get the whole kit and kaboodle?

 

[Marilena]

if you were confirmed by a priest it is then valid.

 

[LilyM]

Not hard to do, Canon Law can confuse anyone, and generally does.

I was Confirmed by a priest.

Whats sad is I am sponsoring a great young man this year in RCIA. I keep thinking about the Confirmations I have watched in the past few years, kind of feeling left out. Perhaps helping someone else go through the process I will feel more fully confirmed.
BTW does someone like myself who made a simple Profession of Faith, had hands laid on me, blessed, but very simple and quick (took like 10 minutes total) am I fully Confirmed in the same way as those who get the whole kit and kaboodle?

Rest assured - as long as you, the priest who confirmed you and those who advised you all acted in good faith and fully according to their lights, absolutely :yup:

I got the whole Bishop ‘kit and kaboodle’ as you say. Unfortunately I feel I was way too young (only about 10 or so if I remember rightly), although I guess my parents and priest are the better judges of that. And the ceremony was done in Croatian, which language I only partly understand.

Nonetheless in my understanding it was both a valid and licit Confirmation and I accept it as such. I still find the tap on the cheek quite odd, although of course it has significance.

 

[johnnykins]

Not hard to do, Canon Law can confuse anyone, and generally does.

I was Confirmed by a priest.

Whats sad is I am sponsoring a great young man this year in RCIA. I keep thinking about the Confirmations I have watched in the past few years, kind of feeling left out. Perhaps helping someone else go through the process I will feel more fully confirmed.

BTW does someone like myself who made a simple Profession of Faith, had hands laid on me, blessed, but very simple and quick (took like 10 minutes total) am I fully Confirmed in the same way as those who get the whole kit and kaboodle?

Yes unless there was some defect in form matter or intent. It can all be very quick.

 

[johnnykins]

if you were confirmed by a priest it is then valid.

In the Eastern Rite Churches it is the norm for the local priest to confirm immediately after Baptism with communion to follow. (Sometime you may see a small child actually receive communion at a Latin Rite Mass - it typically would be an Eastern Catholic at the Mass since it would be improper to refuse communion in that instance)

It is perfectly allowable in the Latin Rite for the Bishop to delegate confirmation to a priest - and it is often done for the reception of adults at the Vigil Mass.

 

[Marilena]

johnny, lily, and others, your all wonderful to help me out so much!!! God bless you!!! Merry Cbristmas! thanks so much for your help!!

 

[LilyM]

johnny, lily, and others, your all wonderful to help me out so much!!! God bless you!!! Merry Cbristmas! thanks so much for your help!!

More hindrance than help in this case … think I bit off a bigger question than I can chew

Merry Christmas to you too Marilena … still over a week to go though (as I tell myself repeatedly when I start to worry that I haven’t got the shopping done or the cards sent out etc etc … )