Confirmation and Holy Orders Requirement

[suissemissed]

Does one have to be confirmed in order to validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, or is baptism alone the only prerequisite for validity?

The reason I ask is this: According to most of the sources I’ve found, it’s an accepted doctrinal fact in the Church that Confirmation can only be validly received by a person in a state of grace (i.e., not in mortal sin). Soooo, if confirmation IS a requirement for Holy Orders, then how can we be sure we have valid apostolic succession in the Catholic Church at all? There’s got to be scores of people who invalidly receive confirmation in their youth, go on to be “ordained” as priests (invalidly due to lack of confirmation), and then go on to be “ordained” as bishops (also invalidly). These “bishops” then can’t validly pass on the sacrament of Order to anyone else, and eventually this problem will/already has become so widespread in the Church, there will be NO ONE with valid ordinations anymore!

Am I making sense? If confirmation is required for Holy Orders, then how can we be sure that any bishop/priest/deacon’s Holy Orders are valid, since confirmation itself is valid only for those in a state of grace at the time of reception?

 

[1ke]

Does one have to be confirmed in order to validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, or is baptism alone the only prerequisite for validity?

Can. 1033 A person is promoted licitly to orders only if he has received the sacrament of confirmation.

The canon says licitly, not validly.

The reason I ask is this: According to most of the sources I’ve found, it’s an accepted doctrinal fact in the Church that Confirmation can only be validly received by a person in a state of grace (i.e., not in mortal sin).

I don’t know where you got that, because it is not true.

Am I making sense? If confirmation is required for Holy Orders, then how can we be sure that any bishop/priest/deacon’s Holy Orders are valid, since confirmation itself is valid only for those in a state of grace at the time of reception?

You have misunderstood the nature of the sacraments and their requirements. Therefore, you have created a scenario that concerns you, but it is not based on the reality of the situation.

 

[Seatuck]

Does one have to be confirmed in order to validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, or is baptism alone the only prerequisite for validity?

The reason I ask is this: According to most of the sources I’ve found, it’s an accepted doctrinal fact in the Church that Confirmation can only be validly received by a person in a state of grace (i.e., not in mortal sin). Soooo, if confirmation IS a requirement for Holy Orders, then how can we be sure we have valid apostolic succession in the Catholic Church at all? There’s got to be scores of people who invalidly receive confirmation in their youth, go on to be “ordained” as priests (invalidly due to lack of confirmation), and then go on to be “ordained” as bishops (also invalidly). These “bishops” then can’t validly pass on the sacrament of Order to anyone else, and eventually this problem will/already has become so widespread in the Church, there will be NO ONE with valid ordinations anymore!

Am I making sense? If confirmation is required for Holy Orders, then how can we be sure that any bishop/priest/deacon’s Holy Orders are valid, since confirmation itself is valid only for those in a state of grace at the time of reception?

While it is true that one must be in a state of grace to receive the grace associated with a particular sacrament this does not make the sacrament invalid.

 

[suissemissed]

Thank you both for your replies - just a moment ago I found this post by Jimmy Akin who also agrees with your answers. Question solved!