Confirmation by Priests

[runningdude]

This is an annoyingly technical question here! I understand all the basics, but would like something specific clarified:

Can a priest, WITH neither faculties nor permission of any sort from his bishop or lawful ordinary (such as a laiticized or excommunicated priest) confer a valid, even if illicit, confirmation in a NON-emergancy situation, where both parties were involved knew of the lack of faculties/permission? Yikes! Good luck unraveling this!

I am trying to better understand the boundaries of the “abilities” for a lack of a better of the Holy Orders better. Thanks!

 

[puzzleannie]

2 separate issues
a priest who does not have faculties from a particular bishop, I assume you mean the bishop of the territory this takes place, or a priest who has not been given by law or directly by the bishop faculty to confirm in this case

validity of sacraments conferred by excommunicated or laicized priests (not the same thing, not all priests who have been returned to the lay state are excommunicated).

which is it?

is this hypothetical or an actual case? if the latter make sure you are in possession of all the facts and relate them to the bishop, usually through the chancellor, vicar for priests or vicar general of the diocese in which this happened.

 

[Vince1022]

This is an annoyingly technical question here! I understand all the basics, but would like something specific clarified:

Can a priest, WITH neither faculties nor permission of any sort from his bishop or lawful ordinary (such as a laiticized or excommunicated priest) confer a valid, even if illicit, confirmation in a NON-emergancy situation, where both parties were involved knew of the lack of faculties/permission? Yikes! Good luck unraveling this!

I am trying to better understand the boundaries of the “abilities” for a lack of a better of the Holy Orders better. Thanks!

What situation are you referring to? This has to be an experience, as I read it, and not a simply hypothetical situation. More info? Thanks.

 

[Spirithound]

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P32.HTM

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

This tells me that a priest must possess faculties to validly confirm. The faculty is granted either by the bishop, or by the Church. The Church grants the faculty automatically when the priest baptizes or accepts an adult into Communion, or in danger of death.

The faculty granted in danger of death is the same faculty that is granted to a laicized or an excommunicated priest to hear a confession.

So in short, no faculties, no confirmation.

 

[TheMc]

If a priest is validly ordained, then he can perform any priestly act, even without facilities. I thought this was weird when I heard it, but a priest can even ordain priests and deacons (but not bishops), although he may only licitly ordain when it is absoultely impossible for a bishop to do so, and it is gravely important.

Here’s one possibility, adapted from a theoretical case my pastor came up with: A boat full of one hundred people (including 1 priest) get stuck on an island, and are there for many years (like 30 years), and have no chance of getting rescued. They have no contact with the outside world, and the one priest is getting old. He could licitly ordain a man deacon, and then priest. By the way, he could also confirm.

 

[Spirithound]

I thought this was weird when I heard it, but a priest can even ordain priests and deacons (but not bishops)…

I don’t think this is correct. According to canon law,

Can. 1012 The minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3O.HTM

Canon law gives rules governing both validity and liceity, and elsewhere, for the other sacraments, specifies when administering a sacrament is illicit but valid, but does not make the distinction for Holy Orders.

Here’s one possibility: A boat full of one hundred people (including 1 priest) get stuck on an island, and are there for many years (like 30 years), and have no chance of getting rescued. They have no contact with the outside world, and the one priest is getting old. He could licitly ordain a man deacon, and then priest. By the way, he could also confirm.

I don’t think a shipwreck where everybody is safe would fit the criteria for supplied jurisdiction, and I definitely don’t see this as a valid reason for him to attempt to ordain a new priest.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

This is an annoyingly technical question here! I understand all the basics, but would like something specific clarified:

Can a priest, WITH neither faculties nor permission of any sort from his bishop or lawful ordinary (such as a laiticized or excommunicated priest) confer a valid, even if illicit, confirmation in a NON-emergancy situation, where both parties were involved knew of the lack of faculties/permission? Yikes! Good luck unraveling this!

I am trying to better understand the boundaries of the “abilities” for a lack of a better of the Holy Orders better. Thanks!

As the other posters who have already replied to you it would be helpful to have more information. Are you asking a hypothetical question … what if … in these circumstances? If it is a real-life case you could be more specific without revealing the identity of those concerned (I did this with a marriage sacrament question and received good answers without the need to give away any personal details).

What I don’t think any of the other posters have have done, I would venture to say (as an amateur with an interest in canon law but not a professional canon law): the actions you describe would almost certainly be illicit. The canons on the minister of the sacrament of confirmation (Cann. 882-888) state that a priest can only confirm where with common law or his Ordinary’s faculties grant him the power to do so. The canons imply that to do so without permission of common law or faculties would make the act illicit. My canon law commentary does not help. It says nothing on whether a confirmation by a priest would be valid or invalid if he did so outside those occasions granted to him by the common law of by his faculties from his Ordinary.

 

[Vince1022]

If a priest is validly ordained, then he can perform any priestly act, even without facilities…

Not in the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Canon Law states that a priest would need faculties to validly confer the Sacrament

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

 

[mardukm]

FYI, presbyters are the normal ministers of confirmation in the Eastern and Oriental Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[runningdude]

Hypothetical, but arising out a previous discussion.

 

[runningdude]

This is just a hypothetical situation. In another thread, the subject of what I will call “sacramental jurisdiction” came up.

My hypothetical priest has no authority whatsoever to act in the name of the church, lol. Could he, by simple virtue of the indelible mark on his soul conferred by Holy Orders, and no other authority, celebrate a valid (though likely illicit) confirmation?

Its an obtuse and highly unlikely scenario - hence I ask it here !

 

[jlhargus]

This is an annoyingly technical question here! I understand all the basics, but would like something specific clarified:

Can a priest, WITH neither faculties nor permission of any sort from his bishop or lawful ordinary (such as a laiticized or excommunicated priest) confer a valid, even if illicit, confirmation in a NON-emergancy situation, where both parties were involved knew of the lack of faculties/permission? Yikes! Good luck unraveling this!

I am trying to better understand the boundaries of the “abilities” for a lack of a better of the Holy Orders better. Thanks!

JL: I would say not even a priest in good standing can confirm WITHOUT permission from the bishop. In my parish the priest has permission to confirm, already baptized adults, who come into the Church holy Saturday through RCIA. I think he must get that permission every year, not sure though. The priest cannot and does not comfirm children who are to be confirmed in the parish. The bishop cames to the parish every year to confirm young people.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

JL: I would say not even a priest in good standing can confirm WITHOUT permission from the bishop. In my parish the priest has permission to confirm, already baptized adults, who come into the Church holy Saturday through RCIA. I think he must get that permission every year, not sure though. The priest cannot and does not comfirm children who are to be confirmed in the parish. The bishop cames to the parish every year to confirm young people.

I do not, obviously, know the circumstances in your diocese. I believe all priests are given the faculty to confirm any adult they have baptised, this will cover the situation at the Paschal Vigil.

They have also the faculty to confirm validly baptised non-Catholic Christians when receiving them in to full communion with the Latin Catholic Church.

These are normally contained with in the priest’s Pagella of Faculties granted by their Bishop, which means it is unnecessary to have this permission renewed annually (example here).

Bishops grant this faculty in accord with Canon 883 2°.

 

[mardukm]

I do not, obviously, know the circumstances in your diocese. I believe all priests are given the faculty to confirm any adult they have baptised, this will cover the situation at the Paschal Vigil.

They have also the faculty to confirm validly baptised non-Catholic Christians when receiving them in to full communion with the Latin Catholic Church.

These are normally contained with in the priest’s Pagella of Faculties granted by their Bishop, which means it is unnecessary to have this permission renewed annually (example here).

Bishops grant this faculty in accord with Canon 883 2°.

That makes sense.

Blessings

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

FYI, presbyters are the normal ministers of confirmation in the Eastern and Oriental Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

I don’t know how the Eastern and Oriental traditions reason theologically concerning these sacraments, but Eastern practice is certainly compatible with the Latin understanding of the relationship between bishop and presbyters. Within that tradition, the bishop is the high priest and bishops alone possess the fulness of Holy Orders. Presbyters, on the other hand, partake/share in the ministry of the high priest, and thus have some sacramental abilities by virtue of their sacramental orders alone (e.g. the power to confect the Eucharist), while certain other priestly powers are acquired by priests only through being explicitly joined with the bishop’s ministry (e.g., a bishop might only united his most learned or trusted priests with himself in absolving the sins of his flock). Whereas in the East the entire presbyterate has since ancient times been united with the bishops in initiating Christians through all three sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist), the Western bishops have since, IIRC roughly the 6th/7th century largely reserved to themselves the power to confirm.

This is just a hypothetical situation. In another thread, the subject of what I will call “sacramental jurisdiction” came up.

My hypothetical priest has no authority whatsoever to act in the name of the church, lol. Could he, by simple virtue of the indelible mark on his soul conferred by Holy Orders, and no other authority, celebrate a valid (though likely illicit) confirmation?

Its an obtuse and highly unlikely scenario - hence I ask it here !

Your qualifier about full knowledge of all those (i.e., the only two) involved rules out any possibility of supplied jurisdiction. Thus, lacking both express faculties either by grant of law or ordinary, and also lacking any supplied faculties, the priest would be incapable of conferring confirmation by simple dint of his indelible Holy Orders. He does not possess the fulness of the priesthood, and the conferral of Confirmation belongs to that fulness (to either execute or depute).

 

[ConstantineTG]

FYI, presbyters are the normal ministers of confirmation in the Eastern and Oriental Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Right. That is why I also quoted Can 883 which states that if a priest (Roman Rite) receives a person into the Church (convert) then he can give the person the Sacraments of Initiation. This is similar to Eastern traditions as the Sacraments of Initiation are given at the same time regardless of age.

 

[Vince1022]

This is just a hypothetical situation. In another thread, the subject of what I will call “sacramental jurisdiction” came up.

My hypothetical priest has no authority whatsoever to act in the name of the church, lol. Could he, by simple virtue of the indelible mark on his soul conferred by Holy Orders, and no other authority, celebrate a valid (though likely illicit) confirmation?

Its an obtuse and highly unlikely scenario - hence I ask it here !

Yes, it would likely be valid but illicit…but why are you asking this? Is this just mental gymnastics?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, it would likely be valid but illicit…but why are you asking this? Is this just mental gymnastics?

It would be invalid as stated by Canon Law. Remember that a priest who has no authority from the Church (which is the OPs scenario) is different from a priest who has authority from a Church in schism.

Also the matter of Confirmation is Sacred Chrism. If the priest has no authority whatsoever, where would he get Sacred Chrism from? Although I believe all priests of a diocese are given Sacred Chrism and Canon 883 states the times when they would have the faculties to Confirm.

 

[Vince1022]

I do not, obviously, know the circumstances in your diocese. I believe all priests are given the faculty to confirm any adult they have baptised, this will cover the situation at the Paschal Vigil.

They have also the faculty to confirm validly baptised non-Catholic Christians when receiving them in to full communion with the Latin Catholic Church.

These are normally contained with in the priest’s Pagella of Faculties granted by their Bishop, which means it is unnecessary to have this permission renewed annually (example here).

Bishops grant this faculty in accord with Canon 883 2°.

Priests have the faculty to confirm, as you note, by the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults).No special permissions, delegations, etc., are needed. This is liturgical law.