Confirmation validity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dawn_Treader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dawn_Treader

Guest
Hi everyone.
I was baptized and confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year, and the other day as I was looking at the DVD I noticed that the pastor used the formula “be anointed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” instead of “be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” for my confirmation. He only did this for the first two (I was the second) and then switched to the correct formula for the rest. I didn’t notice it at the time, and I’m not sure even he realized that he said it that way. My question is, since the matter and presumably the intent were correct, does this slight change in form invalidate my confirmation?
 
Dawn_Treader said:
Hi everyone.
I was baptized and confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year, and the other day as I was looking at the DVD I noticed that the pastor used the formula “be anointed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” instead of “be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” for my confirmation. He only did this for the first two (I was the second) and then switched to the correct formula for the rest. I didn’t notice it at the time, and I’m not sure even he realized that he said it that way. My question is, since the matter and presumably the intent were correct, does this slight change in form invalidate my confirmation?
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, take the DVD and see him ASAP. (Or your current pastor)
 
Also know: If there is doubt about the validity of the sacrament, it may be conferred conditionally in order to assure all concerned.

tee
 
Dawn_Treader said:
Hi everyone.
I was baptized and confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year, and the other day as I was looking at the DVD I noticed that the pastor used the formula “be anointed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” instead of “be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” for my confirmation. He only did this for the first two (I was the second) and then switched to the correct formula for the rest. I didn’t notice it at the time, and I’m not sure even he realized that he said it that way. My question is, since the matter and presumably the intent were correct, does this slight change in form invalidate my confirmation?
Click to expand...
Trust the Bishop.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
I would probably show the DVD to the pastor before bringing it to the Bishops attention.
Click to expand...
I went through this rather quickly and in the back of my mind was still thinking a bishop did the confirmation. I realize now that this was delegated to the pastor.

My position is, trust the officiant, the cleric who performed the sacrament.

I don’t think anyone need question this. This second guessing of the clergy has gotten way out of hand. 😦
 
Hesychios said:
I went through this rather quickly and in the back of my mind was still thinking a bishop did the confirmation. I realize now that this was delegated to the pastor.

My position is, trust the officiant, the cleric who performed the sacrament.

I don’t think anyone need question this. This second guessing of the clergy has gotten way out of hand. 😦
Click to expand...
For the sacrament, any sacrament, to be valid, it must have the correct form, matter, intent and a validly ordained minister. If the form is incorrect (in other words, the prayers said), then there is the danger that the Sacrament could be rendered invalid. Like tee eff em noted, there is such a thing as a conditional reception of the sacrament until the validity can be ascertained.

The priests need to stick with the script. Even the Holy Father, when he is administering the Sacrament of Confirmation to the faithful, still has someone holding up the words for him so as to ensure that everything is proper.

It is not second-guessing clergy if the validity of a sacrament is in question.
 
The form of words to be used in the sacrament of Confirmation would seem to be prescribed. I don’t know exactly what those words are, or whether there is any latitude, any ‘these or similar words’ loophole.

I would express the concern to your pastor - and if he doesn’t reassure you by, for example, showing you where the form is specified, I’d get in touch with the Bishop.

Hesychios, I know it may seem like overkill to you, but when we’ve had such horrors in recent times as priests baptising ‘in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier’ (contrary to Our Lord’s instructions in scripture), we have every reason to err on the side of caution in regard to the sacraments.
 
LilyM said:
The form of words to be used in the sacrament of Confirmation would seem to be prescribed. I don’t know exactly what those words are, or whether there is any latitude, any ‘these or similar words’ loophole.

I would express the concern to your pastor - and if he doesn’t reassure you by, for example, showing you where the form is specified, I’d get in touch with the Bishop.
Click to expand...
The form for the Sacraments is prescribed. For example, there is a form for the absolution that the priest must say and, for obvious reasons, there is the form for the Consecration. Thus, form is something that is very necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. That also holds true for the blessing and consecration of the oils during th Chrism Mass. There is a specific formula that must be used so that the oils will be validly consecrated.

Yes, I understand the “these or similar words” loophole, but, that is only referenced when the bishop makes the address to the confirmandi (at the beginning) or during ordinations (again, at the beginning). I do not have the Roman Pontifical, but, when I have had to go through it, the phrase “these or similar words” tends to pop up when he is addressinig those who will receive the sacrament, but, I believe, not during the actual imparting of the Sacrament itself.
 
benedictgal said:
The form for the Sacraments is prescribed. For example, there is a form for the absolution that the priest must say and, for obvious reasons, there is the form for the Consecration. Thus, form is something that is very necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. That also holds true for the blessing and consecration of the oils during th Chrism Mass. There is a specific formula that must be used so that the oils will be validly consecrated.

Yes, I understand the “these or similar words” loophole, but, that is only referenced when the bishop makes the address to the confirmandi (at the beginning) or during ordinations (again, at the beginning). I do not have the Roman Pontifical, but, when I have had to go through it, the phrase “these or similar words” tends to pop up when he is addressinig those who will receive the sacrament, but, I believe, not during the actual imparting of the Sacrament itself.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Thanks for the info 👍
 
benedictgal said:
For the sacrament, any sacrament, to be valid, it must have the correct form, matter, intent and a validly ordained minister. If the form is incorrect (in other words, the prayers said), then there is the danger that the Sacrament could be rendered invalid. Like tee eff em noted, there is such a thing as a conditional reception of the sacrament until the validity can be ascertained.

The priests need to stick with the script. Even the Holy Father, when he is administering the Sacrament of Confirmation to the faithful, still has someone holding up the words for him so as to ensure that everything is proper.

It is not second-guessing clergy if the validity of a sacrament is in question.
Click to expand...
There are different forms of this sacrament in all of the different Apostolic churches, not to mention variant translations of each, including the Latin form.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the seal is not an anointing?

What we are witnessing here is a type of scrupulosity. What is worse, it is offensive to the priesthood of God, the order of Melchizedek. And this has seemed to become a commonplace among Catholics.

You seem to have all set yourselves up as judges over your priesthood and your bishops.

If you don’t respect it, why should anyone?

No wonder people think of you as ‘legalistic’.

Judge away, you have become tormentors of the priests who give their lives over in service to you…the men who stand in the flame before God’s holy altar.

You should be kissing his blessing hand.
 
Hesychios said:
There are different forms of this sacrament in all of the different Apostolic churches, not to mention variant translations of each, including the Latin form.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the seal is not an anointing?

What we are witnessing here is a type of scrupulosity. What is worse, it is offensive to the priesthood of God, the order of Melchizedek. And this has seemed to become a commonplace among Catholics.

You seem to have all set yourselves up as judges over your priesthood and your bishops.

If you don’t respect it, why should anyone?

No wonder people think of you as ‘legalistic’.

Judge away, you have become tormentors of the priests who give their lives over in service to you…the men who stand in the flame before God’s holy altar.

You should be kissing his blessing hand.
Click to expand...
Hesychios,
While I understand your sentiment here I think you go too far.

No one here is judging nor are they being legalistic.

The OP is concerned and all the advice that has been given is to talk to his pastor about it.

There is nothing wrong with that advice. If the pastor says that it is ok, then this should stop there. If the OP continues to worry and carry on then I would say that scrupulosity is involved.
 
Hesychios said:
There are different forms of this sacrament in all of the different Apostolic churches, not to mention variant translations of each, including the Latin form.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the seal is not an anointing?

What we are witnessing here is a type of scrupulosity. What is worse, it is offensive to the priesthood of God, the order of Melchizedek. And this has seemed to become a commonplace among Catholics.

You seem to have all set yourselves up as judges over your priesthood and your bishops.

If you don’t respect it, why should anyone?

No wonder people think of you as ‘legalistic’.

Judge away, you have become tormentors of the priests who give their lives over in service to you…the men who stand in the flame before God’s holy altar.

You should be kissing his blessing hand.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of being legalistic; rather it is a matter of safeguarding the validity of the Sacrament. This is tatamount to the imparting of the Sacrament, any sacrament.

Since you are quoting Scripture, perhaps we should also note how very important it was for Ancient Israel’s priests to follow the norms. We need only look at Aaron’s son and Dathan the priest to know that the norms were not taken lightly.

The OP needs to check with the priest who imparted the Sacrament of Confirmation. That is a given. If the form was not used correctly, then he needs to take care of the situation as soon as possible.
 
Dawn_Treader said:
Hi everyone.
I was baptized and confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year, and the other day as I was looking at the DVD I noticed that the pastor used the formula “be anointed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” instead of “be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” for my confirmation. He only did this for the first two (I was the second) and then switched to the correct formula for the rest. I didn’t notice it at the time, and I’m not sure even he realized that he said it that way. My question is, since the matter and presumably the intent were correct, does this slight change in form invalidate my confirmation?
Click to expand...
Dawn,
The question of what constitutes valid words for the Sacrament of Confirmation was debated extensively in the aftermath of Vatican II. The most obvious example of this was the question of whether the bishop should use the active or the passive voice. It’s not my intention with these comments to start (or continue) a discussion about what should be the valid words, or what might be considered alternate words for validity. My point is to say that the Church gave this matter some very careful thought.

Protocol is that one should always approach the pastor before contacting the bishop. However this issue is slightly different because it is not a matter of “reporting” the priest, but a question which you have and that question of whether or not you received a valid sacrament is of the utmost importance. Whether or not the words of a sacrament are valid is not a question to be answered by a parish priest. From the priest’s point-of-view the ONLY words for a valid sacrament are precisely the words defined by the Church. Whether or not you received a valid sacrament is not a question which the pastor can answer (not in this case).

What I am saying here is that this question should be addressed to your bishop. I am not saying that you should “report” the pastor, nor that you should question the pastor himself, his motivation or his reasoning or even his intent to say the proper words as opposed to a simple mistake.

I am saying that the answer to your question “was I validly confirmed?” is one which should be asked of your bishop. It is too important an issue not to ask the question.
 
Dawn_Treader said:
Hi everyone.
I was baptized and confirmed at the Easter Vigil last year…
Click to expand...
Dear Dawn Treader,

I am sorry for the offense I may have caused. It seems you have been given good advice from Father David. Ask your bishop directly.

Please post back here and tell us what your bishop tells you. I am eager to learn more about this.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael
 
Thank you to everyone for your responses. They have been very helpful
Hesychios said:
I am sorry for the offense I may have caused.
Click to expand...
No offense is taken. I understand the concerns that you had. Similar concerns made me hesitant to even raise the issue.

I will be following Father David’s advice, and I will take care to not single out the parish or the priest and emphasize that I am not trying to “report” anyone. I’m confident that I will be in good hands, as we have a truly excellent Bishop (Deo Gratias).
And I’ll be sure to let you all know how it turns out.

Once again, thanks to all who posted.
 
Hesychios said:
There are different forms of this sacrament in all of the different Apostolic churches, not to mention variant translations of each, including the Latin form.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the seal is not an anointing?

What we are witnessing here is a type of scrupulosity. What is worse, it is offensive to the priesthood of God, the order of Melchizedek. And this has seemed to become a commonplace among Catholics.

You seem to have all set yourselves up as judges over your priesthood and your bishops.

If you don’t respect it, why should anyone?

No wonder people think of you as ‘legalistic’.

Judge away, you have become tormentors of the priests who give their lives over in service to you…the men who stand in the flame before God’s holy altar.

You should be kissing his blessing hand.
Click to expand...
I see that you are Orthodox remember what you do and believe in the Orthodox Church applies to the Orthtodox Church.

For validity in the Latin Church we look at Form (the specific words required), Matter (the laying on of hands for Confirmation), and the Intent of the proper minister (That the minister intends to confer the Sacrament)
 
I just want to make something clear, there is nothing wrong with being legalistic. Legality in the Church is what defines the difference between licit and illicit, between valid and invalid. Being legalistic is a good thing! 👍

I also want to stress that Hesychios suggestion of being careful with over-scrutinizing our officiants is a good one. In medium stat virtus!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top