Confirmation Question

[masuwerte]

If a person were confirmed by a bishop with valid but illicit orders (from the Catholic perspective - an Old Catholic bishop, for example), and later chose to convert to Catholicism, would he be confirmed a second time?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If a person were confirmed by a bishop with valid but illicit orders (from the Catholic perspective - an Old Catholic bishop, for example), and later chose to convert to Catholicism, would he be confirmed a second time?

No.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If a person were confirmed by a bishop with valid but illicit orders (from the Catholic perspective - an Old Catholic bishop, for example), and later chose to convert to Catholicism, would he be confirmed a second time?

As what Bro. David said. This is also true for Orthodox converting to Catholicism. Confirmation is like Baptism, its permanent and when its valid, its valid.

 

[runningdude]

Nope. He would simply make an oath/profession of faith, and likely receive the sacrament of reconciliation to fully reconcile himself with Christ’s true Church.

 

[Vince1022]

If a person were confirmed by a bishop with valid but illicit orders (from the Catholic perspective - an Old Catholic bishop, for example), and later chose to convert to Catholicism, would he be confirmed a second time?

no

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Sounds like I’m side tracking but I’m not. Does the Holy See recognise the validity of Orders in the Old Catholic Churches?

 

[Chatter163]

Sounds like I’m side tracking but I’m not. Does the Holy See recognise the validity of Orders in the Old Catholic Churches?

Historically, yes. However, in recent years some of the groups have begun to ordain women, so the picture is getting murkier with time.

 

[mardukm]

Sounds like I’m side tracking but I’m not. Does the Holy See recognise the validity of Orders in the Old Catholic Churches?

The only one for certain is the PNCC, who, interestingly enough, was booted out of the Old Catholic communion for its conservatism.

Blessings

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Historically, yes. However, in recent years some of the groups have begun to ordain women, so the picture is getting murkier with time.

That was what partly instigated my question - I knew some of them were ordaining women. Although I assume they had considered their bishops to be in valid, even if illicit, succession. Rome must have also considered their rite of ordination to be valid. I believe Rome has declared Anglican orders invalid not because succession cannot be demonstrated but because there are questions over particularly its form.

 

[runningdude]

That was what partly instigated my question - I knew some of them were ordaining women. Although I assume they had considered their bishops to be in valid, even if illicit, succession. Rome must have also considered their rite of ordination to be valid. I believe Rome has declared Anglican orders invalid not because succession cannot be demonstrated but because there are questions over particularly its form.

The Old Catholics used the same rite of ordination as Catholics did. The only problem would be if you used such a rite on a woman - simply doesn’t work, and an easy way to break apostolic succession if she were to go through the motions of ordination.