Can excommunicated bishops confirm?

[katzenjammer]

I was coerced into being confirmed by Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX when I was about 13 and have always wondered whether or not excommunicated bishops have to power to administer the sacrament of Confirmation. Was it valid? Will I have to have it done again?

 

[katzenjammer]

I just reread my post and realised it could be misinterpreted. Just like to make it clear that my family members were the ones pressuring me to be confirmed

 

[Johndigger]

It was valid but illicit (illegal under Church law.)

Confirmation is an indelible mark on your soul. It cannot be taken away or “re-done.”

Confirmation is unlike marriage and confession, where you need “faculties” (Jurisdiction / permission from an official Church representative) for them to be valid.

In short, you do not need to be re-confirmed. You are already.

God bless.

JD

 

[NetNuncio]

Can they? Yes.

Should they? No.

 

[katzenjammer]

Confirmation is an indelible mark on your soul. It cannot be taken away or “re-done.”

Confirmation is unlike marriage and confession, where you need “faculties” (Jurisdiction / permission from an official Church representative) for them to be valid.

In short, you do not need to be re-confirmed. You are already.
JD

Darn. I thought at the time that I could get it redone in the “proper” church and get to choose my own patron saint. (My mother chose mine. She didn’t give me the option ).

Ah well. Thx for answering my question.

 

[Johndigger]

Darn. I thought at the time that I could get it redone in the “proper” church and get to choose my own patron saint. (My mother chose mine. She didn’t give me the option ).

Ah well. Thx for answering my question.

Rejoice, my friend. You have had the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit working in your life for longer than you would have done had you not been confirmed.

Who knows what glorious changes (Albeit unseen) this may have wrought for your future life?

You can still put yourself under the particular loving protection of any Saint you wish.

Which Saint did your Mother pick for you, by the way?

In love,

JD

 

[Koopa]

Don’t worry. Your confirmation was just as miraculous and holy as the ones conducted by the Pope.

This reminds of a story I heard on EWTN. Apparently some saint (St. Theresa of Alvarez, maybe (is that even a saint?)) was going up to receive Communion from a priest and she suddenly saw two terrible demons standing on either side of him. The demons had their horns wrapped around the priest’s neck, but the priest held up the Eucharist to her and she saw Christ in all his shining glory. The saint came to realize that the priest was in a state of mortal sin, and that even in this terrible state of his soul, the Eucharist was valid and untouched by the priest’s sinfulness.

 

[Spirithound]

All bishops have the power to make Confirmations by virtue of their Holy Orders. Some bishops, however, have been ordered not to do so. So it was potentially valid, but not licit.
I don’t want to add to your confusion, but I’m just wondering, maybe someone can answer, but if a person is “coerced” into undergoing the Confirmation ceremony, does that person have the necessary intention to receive it?

 

[Johndigger]

Does it need consent, though? Confirmation is a “completion” of Baptism and for baptism to be valid, it doesn’t need consent.

Is the intention of the Bishop all that matters?

In Christ,

JD

 

[Cristiano]

Does it need consent, though? Confirmation is a “completion” of Baptism and for baptism to be valid, it doesn’t need consent.

Is the intention of the Bishop all that matters?

In Christ,

JD

1- From your statement it appears that you are saying that the baptism is an incomplete sacrament.

2- From your statement it also appears that that any adult can be baptized against his will and the sacrament is still valid.

 

[masterjedi747]

Confirmation is unlike marriage and confession, where you need “faculties” (Jurisdiction / permission from an official Church representative) for them to be valid.

…is that part right?

I thought even laicized priests could give confession, if absolutely necessary. And they could also give it if not necessary, and have it be valid but not licit. Same goes for consecrating the Eucharist… they can, since the priesthood can never be “undone”, but nevertheless they are not allowed to.

Similarly with marriage… under normal conditions, the Church recognizes even non-Catholics, such as Protestants, as still having a valid and sacramental marriage, since it is the husband and wife that give the sacrament to each other. (If they were Catholic, it would be a different story, since they would be required to go through the Church… but still. I’m pretty sure that Baptism and Marriage are the only two sacraments that Protestants actually have access to.)

 

[Inman]

I am assuming you are now in communion with a parish in good standing with a catholic diocese

I would suggest that you inform your parish priest about the SSPX confirmation and provide him what ever certificate or document they gave you, so that it can be recorded in the parish sacremental records. If there is any doubt about the validly of the confirmation (i am not suggesting there is), the priest could take the appropriate action.

If you have the sacrement recorded there will be one less thing to take care of in the future if you ever get married.

 

[Johndigger]

1- From your statement it appears that you are saying that the baptism is an incomplete sacrament.

No. Hence why I said “completion” in quotes.

Confirmation is, in a sense, a completion of baptism. They are both Sacraments of initiation within the Church.

They used to be conferred at the same time, when the child was an infant. It was actually a while before they were seen as seperate sacraments.

Perhaps a better phrase would be confirmation is “the fulfillment of baptism?”

2- From your statement it also appears that that any adult can be baptized against his will and the sacrament is still valid.

No, I’m saying that the consent is not intrinsic to the validity of the sacrament.

This point is self-evident by the fact that baptism may be conferred without consent in the case of babies, dying people, mentally disabled etc

My question then, is given the intimate link between the two sacraments - baptism and confirmation - could it be that the matter of intention is also similiar?

God bless you.

In Christ,

JD

 

[Digitonomy]

My question then, is given the intimate link between the two sacraments - baptism and confirmation - could it be that the matter of intention is also similiar?God bless youIn ChristJD

I think you are correct, although I disagree with your statement that “the intention of the bishop is all that matters.” My understanding is that a baptism against the will of the party being baptised is invalid. If so, then the similarity you pointed out suggests a forcible confirmation against the will of the person, as reported in the OP, would likewise be invalid.

 

[Johndigger]

…is that part right?

I thought even laicized priests could give confession, if absolutely necessary. And they could also give it if not necessary, and have it be valid but not licit. Same goes for consecrating the Eucharist… they can, since the priesthood can never be “undone”, but nevertheless they are not allowed to.

Similarly with marriage… under normal conditions, the Church recognizes even non-Catholics, such as Protestants, as still having a valid and sacramental marriage, since it is the husband and wife that give the sacrament to each other. (If they were Catholic, it would be a different story, since they would be required to go through the Church… but still. I’m pretty sure that Baptism and Marriage are the only two sacraments that Protestants actually have access to.)

Well, seeing as the candidate probably wasn’t looking for an intensly complicated answer I only posted the basics, but I will go further into it now.

Validly celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist is an intrinsic part of Holy Orders, by the very nature of Holy Orders.

Confession, however, is not.

Can. 966
§1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, **in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it **for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority.

Basically, you need valid Holy Orders and faculties. Faculties can be granted by either a diocesan Bishop or even if you don’t have this permission in cases of danger of death because the Church will supply the faculties.

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

The position of the Church, as I understand it, is that the SSPX do not have faculties or jurisdiction for confession, except in cases where there is “probable doubt of law” or “factual or legal common error.”

Now exactly constitutes “factual or legal common error” is the subject of much debate.

As you can see, the issue gets rather complicated with even trained canonists (Of which I am certainly not!) having different opinions.

In the case of marriage, non-baptised peoples marriages are valid because they have what is called a “natural marriage” and in the case of Protestants, they are not bound by canon law - because that’s only for Catholics, so there’s is valid also.

However, when a Catholic they are bound by canon law, which may render the sacrament invalid.

In Christ,

JD

 

[Johndigger]

I think you are correct, although I disagree with your statement that “the intention of the bishop is all that matters.” My understanding is that a baptism against the will of the party being baptised is invalid. If so, then the similarity you pointed out suggests a forcible confirmation against the will of the person, as reported in the OP, would likewise be invalid.

Well, it was more of a question and less of a statement, but yes, you may be correct.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge could clarify for us.

(Apologies, to the OP, we have hijacked your thread completely, but we are trying find you the best answer. I’d reccomend really, that you take everything we say with a pinch of salt and go and ask your Parish Priest )

JD

 

[masterjedi747]

…I only posted the basics, but I will go further into it now.

Alright, cool. Thanks for the explanation. That definitely made more sense.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It was valid but illicit (illegal under Church law.)

Confirmation is an indelible mark on your soul. It cannot be taken away or “re-done.”

Confirmation is unlike marriage and confession, where you need “faculties” (Jurisdiction / permission from an official Church representative) for them to be valid.

In short, you do not need to be re-confirmed. You are already.

God bless.

JD

Actually, confirmation is another sacrament that requires faculties in order to be conferred validly, but just like those other two, the requirement of faculties is relevant for priests. Bishops possess the fullness of Holy Orders and thus the power to validly confer all sacraments (although in this case it was, indeed, done illicitly). Priests, because they do not possess the fullness of Orders, require faculties from an ordinary in order to exercise certain powers of Orders, such as absolving and confirming.

No, I’m saying that the consent is not intrinsic to the validity of the sacrament.

This point is self-evident by the fact that baptism may be conferred without consent in the case of babies, dying people, mentally disabled etc

Baptism may validly be conferred without the consent of those who have not attained the use of reason, based upon the consent of another. For those who have attained the use of reason, though, they must have expressed some sort of previous desire or intention to receive the sacrament in order to receive it validly without giving consent (such as, I’m in RCIA but then fall ill and am unconscious by the time they try to baptize me). No one can be validly baptized against his will.

 

[musicmantg11]

Once your confirmed in the Catholic Church your comfirmed. The bishop was very wrong if he was excommunicated.