confirmed by Bp Williamson

[dans0622]

… One more time, I’ll say it: In order to address the larger issue, we must first understand that a bishop needs faculties in order to minister. …

Hello,

Ok. Since it is Lent I’ll get in on this. I don’t know what the larger issue is, but as far as the issue of the thread (the validity of confirmation administered by a bishop) goes, there is nothing in the law about faculties: “The ordinary minister of Confirmation is a bishop.” The obvious conclusion, then, is that a bishop does not need a faculty in order to confirm. Since I know my opinion is without value here, I will point to the published work of a noted canon lawyer. According to Prof. J. Huels in Liturgy and Law, p. 78: “By ecclesiastical law, (priests) also need a faculty to celebrate penance, and presbyters but not bishops need a faculty to confirm validly (cc. 966, 983-984).”

Given the way the law (and Sacramental theology) address the issue, I don’t know who would presume to have the authority to grant a bishop the faculty to confirm when he already can confirm since he is an ordained bishop. A diocesan bishop would have no business telling his auxiliary bishop that he cannot confirm until he (the diocesan bishop) grants him a faculty to do so. It’s like someone giving me the faculty to marry or a priest the faculty to baptize a baby. I can marry, the priest can baptize a baby and a bishop can confirm without any need to wonder about faculties.

Faculties as they relate to a bishop and the power of governance (which is the concern of c. 409.2, specifically the executive power of governance) is another matter.

Dan

 

[Brendan]

It’s a good quote, but no, it’s not exactly what I’m getting at.

Like I’ve said, we first have to understand that a bishop does need to have faculties to minister. Without that as a basis or starting-point, the rest (the part that I’m holding back) will be even harder to understand than it is now.

But suffice to say that no, the Petrine Ministry is not exactly what I’m getting at (or trying to at least).

OK, lets accept as an axiom that the bishop who is not the ordinary in his own diocese, or another ordinary who is confirming his own subjects, needs faculties to Confirm.

The next question ( as the question at the heart of the OP), then becomes, “Does a lack of faculties infer that the Confirmation is invalid, Is the indelible mark of Confirmation imprinted on the soul or not?”

I would presume that we would all agree that is it not a trival question and, therefore, deserves an answer.

I would claim that the validity is not in question, that an indelible mark is, in fact conferred.

Thoughts on that one?

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,
…
Given the way the law (and Sacramental theology) address the issue, I don’t know who would presume to have the authority to grant a bishop the faculty to confirm when he already can confirm since he is an ordained bishop. A diocesan bishop would have no business telling his auxiliary bishop that he cannot confirm until he (the diocesan bishop) grants him a faculty to do so. It’s like someone giving me the faculty to marry or a priest the faculty to baptize a baby. I can marry, the priest can baptize a baby and a bishop can confirm without any need to wonder about faculties.

Faculties as they relate to a bishop and the power of governance (which is the concern of c. 409.2, specifically the executive power of governance) is another matter.

Dan

A bishop-ordinary has those faculties by virtue of his office. Again, that is not to say that he doesn’t need faculties. He has them by office, but he still needs them. Episcopal ordination all by itself does not carry with it any faculties.

When someone has faculties by virtue of office, that is not the same thing as saying that those faculties are not-needed. I know you know canon law. Please read that sentence and look at it with a critical eye.

The fact that faculties have already been granted is not the same thing as saying that faculties are not necessary.

What I am writing (and have been) is not in any way contradicted by the quote you’ve provided. The problem here is that instead of reading what I’ve written and looking at it at face-value for exactly what it says, you’ve apparently decided that you already know what I’m saying, and that I’m wrong, so you’re looking for a way to prove me wrong. Instead, try reading it again carefully and look only at what I’ve written: not what you think is being said, but what I’m actually writing. Try this and see what happens, will you please?

 

[JReducation]

Hello,

Ok. Since it is Lent I’ll get in on this. I don’t know what the larger issue is, but as far as the issue of the thread (the validity of confirmation administered by a bishop) goes, there is nothing in the law about faculties: “The ordinary minister of Confirmation is a bishop.” The obvious conclusion, then, is that a bishop does not need a faculty in order to confirm. Since I know my opinion is without value here, I will point to the published work of a noted canon lawyer. According to Prof. J. Huels in Liturgy and Law, p. 78: “By ecclesiastical law, (priests) also need a faculty to celebrate penance, and presbyters but not bishops need a faculty to confirm validly (cc. 966, 983-984).”

Given the way the law (and Sacramental theology) address the issue, I don’t know who would presume to have the authority to grant a bishop the faculty to confirm when he already can confirm since he is an ordained bishop. A diocesan bishop would have no business telling his auxiliary bishop that he cannot confirm until he (the diocesan bishop) grants him a faculty to do so. It’s like someone giving me the faculty to marry or a priest the faculty to baptize a baby. I can marry, the priest can baptize a baby and a bishop can confirm without any need to wonder about faculties.

Faculties as they relate to a bishop and the power of governance (which is the concern of c. 409.2, specifically the executive power of governance) is another matter.

Dan

If you examine the statement carefully, it’s talking about faculties necessary for validity.

That is not the same as faculties necessary to do it at all. The statement is saying that bishops can validly confirm. However, if he does not have the permission of the Ordinary of the Diocese, such confirmation is illegal.

Yes, the diocesan bishop can tell his auxiliary that he cannot confirm and the auxiliary is bound to obey and not to confirm, because he does not have the faculties or the license to exercise his episcopal ministry in this diocese.

Let’s take it to another sacrament. I was the superior for my community. I’m not a priest. I’m a religious brother. We have brothers who are priests. No bishop has faculties to ordain any of our brothers without a letter from the superior. The law says that an ordination by a bishop is valid. He does not need faculties for validity. But he he needs faculties for liceity. The only person who can grant him permission to ordain a member of a religious order is the religious superior. Even the local diocesan bishop does not have that authority. He can only grant the bishop permission to ordain within his geographical territory, not permission to ordain a Franciscan, Dominican, Jesuit, etc.

Everyone needs faculties to legally exercise his ministry, even if he has the faculties that come with the office. That’s one thing, another is the faculties that come with jurisdiction. In my example, the bishop who ordains one of my brothers without my permission does not have the faculties to do so, because he has no jurisdiction over my brothers. Only I, as the major superior have jurisdiction over them, not even the local diocesan Ordinary has jurisdiction over them. In that case, if the bishop proceeded to ordain without the faculties to do so, he would incur an automatic suspension. If the bishop is already suspended, he only aggravates the situation for himself and maybe for the recipient of the sacrament. In the case of an ordination, the newly ordained religious is automatically suspended along with the ordaining bishop and he incurs other penalties for violating obedience.

Faculties for validity are granted by the Church with the office. Validity is not enough. You need jurisdiction to exercise that ministry. That jurisdiction can only be granted by someone who has the canonical authority to do so. This is why Father says that the big picture gets very complicated if we do not look at the necessary faculties from the proper authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[5Loaves]

If you examine the statement carefully, it’s talking about faculties necessary for validity.

That is not the same as faculties necessary to do it at all. The statement is saying that bishops can validly confirm. However, if he does not have the permission of the Ordinary of the Diocese, such confirmation is illegal.

Yes, the diocesan bishop can tell his auxiliary that he cannot confirm and the auxiliary is bound to obey and not to confirm, because he does not have the faculties or the license to exercise his episcopal ministry in this diocese.

Let’s take it to another sacrament. I was the superior for my community. I’m not a priest. I’m a religious brother. We have brothers who are priests. No bishop has faculties to ordain any of our brothers without a letter from the superior. The law says that an ordination by a bishop is valid. He does not need faculties for validity. But he he needs faculties for liceity. The only person who can grant him permission to ordain a member of a religious order is the religious superior. Even the local diocesan bishop does not have that authority. He can only grant the bishop permission to ordain within his geographical territory, not permission to ordain a Franciscan, Dominican, Jesuit, etc.

Everyone needs faculties to legally exercise his ministry, even if he has the faculties that come with the office. ** That’s one thing, another is the faculties that come with jurisdiction.** In my example, the bishop who ordains one of my brothers without my permission does not have the faculties to do so, because he has no jurisdiction over my brothers. Only I, as the major superior have jurisdiction over them, not even the local diocesan Ordinary has jurisdiction over them. In that case, if the bishop proceeded to ordain without the faculties to do so, he would incur an automatic suspension. If the bishop is already suspended, he only aggravates the situation for himself and maybe for the recipient of the sacrament. In the case of an ordination, the newly ordained religious is automatically suspended along with the ordaining bishop and he incurs other penalties for violating obedience.

Faculties for validity are granted by the Church with the office. Validity is not enough. You need jurisdiction to exercise that ministry. That jurisdiction can only be granted by someone who has the canonical authority to do so. This is why Father says that the big picture gets very complicated if we do not look at the necessary faculties from the proper authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Perfectly laid out, thank you. Is this not a “dimissorial letter” you refer to? Similar to the situation in your Order, when the Melkite Bishop came to ordain our Russian Greek Catholic man to the diaconate this dimissorial letter was needed. We are under the jurisdiction of the Latin Archbishop. We are currently waiting for a dimissorial letter so that one of our men can be tonsured by the Eparch as a Reader.

Is it not so that there cannot be multiple bishops in a Diocese, other than an archbishop, who serves as a hierarch in his archdiocese, and his auxiliary bishops, which auxiliaries serve within his authority, except when the bishops are of different Catholic Churches, if, for example, one bishop/diocese is the Latin Church, and another bishop/diocese/eparch in the same geographic area is the Maronite Bishop/Diocese? And Religious communities such as yours also overlap with a Latin Church, or ECC Diocese. Likewise the Military and Personal Ordinariates may overlap a Church diocese, but like your religious order their Ordinary may only licitly offer confirmation or ordination within his own flock, except for the permission you speak of, likewise the bishop of the Church diocese may not offer confirmation or ordination to those in the Order without permission. To do otherwise in my understanding is “trespassing” in the jurisdiction of the proper ordinary.

Just as a priest who has had his faculties removed can celebrate the sacraments validly he is not doing so licitly and as you’ve said “If the bishop [priest] is already suspended, he only aggravates the situation for himself and maybe for the recipient of the sacrament.” Are we in agreement that as to OP’s question, OP was validly and illicitly given the Sacrament of Confirmation?

 

[JReducation]

Perfectly laid out, thank you. Is this not a “dimissorial letter” you refer to? Similar to the situation in your Order, when the Melkite Bishop came to ordain our Russian Greek Catholic man to the diaconate this dimissorial letter was needed. We are under the jurisdiction of the Latin Archbishop. We are currently waiting for a dimissorial letter so that one of our men can be tonsured by the Eparch as a Reader.

Is it not so that there cannot be multiple bishops in a Diocese, other than an archbishop, who serves as a hierarch in his archdiocese, and his auxiliary bishops, which auxiliaries serve within his authority, except when the bishops are of different Catholic Churches, if, for example, one bishop/diocese is the Latin Church, and another bishop/diocese/eparch in the same geographic area is the Maronite Bishop/Diocese? And Religious communities such as yours also overlap with a Latin Church, or ECC Diocese. Likewise the Military and Personal Ordinariates may overlap a Church diocese, but like your religious order their Ordinary may only licitly offer confirmation or ordination within his own flock, except for the permission you speak of, likewise the bishop of the Church diocese may not offer confirmation or ordination to those in the Order without permission. To do otherwise in my understanding is “trespassing” in the jurisdiction of the proper ordinary.

Just as a priest who has had his faculties removed can celebrate the sacraments validly he is not doing so licitly and as you’ve said “If the bishop [priest] is already suspended, he only aggravates the situation for himself and maybe for the recipient of the sacrament.” Are we in agreement that as to OP’s question, OP was validly and illicitly given the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Yessss!

As you have so carefully laid it out, the big picture gets very complicated unless you begin with the first issue, the issue of jurisdiction. That’s where Father was trying to get the thread to go, to understand the issue of jurisdiction. Faculties are needed to exercise ministry outside of your jurisdiction. I your case and my own, there is a dimisorial letter that grants the bishop the faculty to ordain under someone else’s jurisdiction. The same is necessary for confirmation. Even auxiliary bishops cannot confirm or ordain in the diocese to which they are assigned without the faculties to use their faculties in that jurisdiction. There may be three bishops in a diocese, but only is the head of the Church. The other two have titular sees. The diocese in which they are stationed is not their see; therefore, they have no jurisdiction unless faculties are given by the Ordinary. In a religious community, the Ordinary is always the Major Superior.

In this case, the bishop confirmed without faculties in that jurisdiction. In plain English, he is overstepping his authority and abusing his episcopal power. You cannot step into someone else’s jurisdiction and exercise ministry. Even religious, we are not incardinated into any diocese. We are incardinated into our respective religious community. However, we cannot set foot in any diocese and exercise ministry without faculties from the local bishop. It has to be the Ordinary, not the auxiliary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[1AugustSon7]

Blessed? Seriously? From a man who is disobedient to Rome, denies the Holocaust, and thinks women need nothing more than a high school education (if even that) and shouldn’t be allowed to drive a vehicle? Wow…“Blessed” isn’t exactly a word I would use…

Your program here is clearly to marginalize the opinions of the Bishop, but by including the bolded statement above, you may have unintentionally weakened your program and broadened the scope of his sentiments to include a much larger demographic. Though politically incorrect, you’d be surprised how many men I have met who have made affirmations (usually while driving, and not infrequently accompanied by cursing) that essentially express the same opinion. Unlike so many other taboo opinions, it seems to have succeeded continuing through generations too.

It is not my opinion (except when they really shouldn’t be driving, as anyone), but I’m just saying

 

[5Loaves]

There may be three bishops in a diocese, but only is the head of the Church. The other two have titular sees. The diocese in which they are stationed is not their see; therefore, they have no jurisdiction unless faculties are given by the Ordinary.

Thank you for this reminder. If one has been at the ordination of an auxiliary bishop, which I have been blest to be present for, you have heard of this titular see assignment in the letter from Rome read during the Liturgy. I used the term “Heirarch” for the Archbishop, because I was floundering for the right relationship, knowing that in fact bishops are all equal. I remember this business of jurisdiction being discussed in our canon law class but that teaching is now too far away and not enough used.

In this case, the bishop confirmed without faculties in that jurisdiction. In plain English, he is overstepping his authority and abusing his episcopal power. You cannot step into someone else’s jurisdiction and exercise ministry. Even religious, we are not incardinated into any diocese. We are incardinated into our respective religious community. However, we cannot set foot in any diocese and exercise ministry without faculties from the local bishop. It has to be the Ordinary, not the auxiliary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

In the East it’s referred to as *eispēdēsis *which is that “trespassing”.

 

[dans0622]

A bishop-ordinary has those faculties by virtue of his office. Again, that is not to say that he doesn’t need faculties. He has them by office, but he still needs them. Episcopal ordination all by itself does not carry with it any faculties.

When someone has faculties by virtue of office, that is not the same thing as saying that those faculties are not-needed. I know you know canon law. Please read that sentence and look at it with a critical eye.

The fact that faculties have already been granted is not the same thing as saying that faculties are not necessary.

What I am writing (and have been) is not in any way contradicted by the quote you’ve provided. The problem here is that instead of reading what I’ve written and looking at it at face-value for exactly what it says, you’ve apparently decided that you already know what I’m saying, and that I’m wrong, so you’re looking for a way to prove me wrong. Instead, try reading it again carefully and look only at what I’ve written: not what you think is being said, but what I’m actually writing. Try this and see what happens, will you please?

Once again, you question my intelligence, reading comprehension and capacity for rational thought like a Harvard professor speaking to a pre-schooler. In post 16 you said “Bishops too need to have faculties to confirm.” and “…a bishop who is not an ordinary does need faculties.” and “…they require faculties…” Then, in post 18 you said “…an auxiliary bishop still needs to have faculties from the local ordinary…” and “All I’m saying is that a bishop needs to have faculties—whether he gets them by virtue of the law itself, or they are granted by the ordinary (as in the case of an auxiliary or a retired bishop), he still needs to have them.” Then, in post 21 you said “…we have to first understand as a “given” the simple fact that even a bishop needs to have faculties in contrast to the idea that a bishop does not need faculties by virtue of his episcopal ordination.” You said the same thing above.

Then, you think I am misunderstanding you or am reading something into what you said when I conclude that you are saying that a bishop needs a faculty from someone in order to confirm? And when I provide a quote that says a bishop does not need a faculty you say “that doesn’t contradict what I said”?

The book I quoted from spoke of “bishops” and said they do not need a faculty. The law speaks of “bishops” as the ordinary ministers and says nothing about them needing a faculty. Not diocesan bishops, just bishops. I’ll give another example. According to the Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, volume 3/1, “In relation to this sacrament (Confirmation), to say that the bishop is the ordinary minister, as the members of the Code Commission expressly make note of, ‘indicates that the bishop, by virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office, has this authority and faculty’” (p. 515).

“By virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office”–simply by being a bishop, in other words, any bishop can confirm. He doesn’t need anyone to give him a faculty. He doesn’t need the law to give him a faculty. That is my position. You have stated the contrary, many times.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Once again, you question my intelligence, reading comprehension and capacity for rational thought like a Harvard professor speaking to a pre-schooler. In post 16 you said “Bishops too need to have faculties to confirm.” and “…a bishop who is not an ordinary does need faculties.” and “…they require faculties…” Then, in post 18 you said “…an auxiliary bishop still needs to have faculties from the local ordinary…” and “All I’m saying is that a bishop needs to have faculties—whether he gets them by virtue of the law itself, or they are granted by the ordinary (as in the case of an auxiliary or a retired bishop), he still needs to have them.” Then, in post 21 you said “…we have to first understand as a “given” the simple fact that even a bishop needs to have faculties in contrast to the idea that a bishop does not need faculties by virtue of his episcopal ordination.” You said the same thing above.

Then, you think I am misunderstanding you or am reading something into what you said when I conclude that you are saying that a bishop needs a faculty from someone in order to confirm? And when I provide a quote that says a bishop does not need a faculty you say “that doesn’t contradict what I said”?

The book I quoted from spoke of “bishops” and said they do not need a faculty. The law speaks of “bishops” as the ordinary ministers and says nothing about them needing a faculty. Not diocesan bishops, just bishops. I’ll give another example. According to the Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, volume 3/1, “In relation to this sacrament (Confirmation), to say that the bishop is the ordinary minister, as the members of the Code Commission expressly make note of, ‘indicates that the bishop, by virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office, has this authority and faculty’” (p. 515).

“By virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office”–simply by being a bishop, in other words, any bishop can confirm. He doesn’t need anyone to give him a faculty. He doesn’t need the law to give him a faculty. That is my position. You have stated the contrary, many times.

Dan

Dan,

I have not stated the contrary. Again, please read my posts.

What I have said is that a episcopal ordination all by itself is not sufficient. A bishop must have faculties to minister, regardless of where/how he has those faculties, he still needs them.

Let’s compare that to what you just wrote. “By virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office…”

Please look at those 2 paragraphs above.

We are saying the same thing. You just don’t see it because you don’t want to see it.

I’ve said repeatedly that those faculties can come by virtue of his office --such as a diocesan bishop, as head and shepherd of his diocese, has those faculties by virtue of his office.

Let me take the quote you provided:

“By virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office”

Now, let me change it to this:

“By virtue of his holy orders -]and episcopal office/-]”

Would you not agree that I’ve changed the meaning of the sentence?

 

[dans0622]

If you examine the statement carefully, it’s talking about faculties necessary for validity.

That is not the same as faculties necessary to do it at all. The statement is saying that bishops can validly confirm. However, if he does not have the permission of the Ordinary of the Diocese, such confirmation is illegal. …

Hello,

I have no real argument with what you said. I will only say that granting “permission” is not the same as granting a faculty. If someone is in need of “permission” then he already has the faculty or “faculties” do not apply in that scenario.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

…
Let me take the quote you provided:

“By virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office”

Now, let me change it to this:

“By virtue of his holy orders -]and episcopal office/-]”

Would you not agree that I’ve changed the meaning of the sentence?

No.

 

[Old_Salt]

I also know of an FSSP priest who was confirmed by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais SSPX, and this priest was not made to get reconfirmed when he entered the FSSP seminary in Denton Nebraska, under the Ordinary Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

 

[Old_Salt]

"knowing that in fact bishops are all equal. "

Except the bishops are not equal to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

 

[Cristiano]

I think that a lot of people here just spend quite sometime talking only about what a Bishop can and cannot do, and maybe the also discuss what he is allowed and not allowed to do. However, it looks like that nobody is focusing on the recipient of the sacrament. For the sacrament to be valid it is not sufficient that the there is a valid minister, there are also a few other conditions attached.

I am leaving this specific topic in the hands of Br. JR and Fr. David but I am going to look at a different case.

A validly ordained catholic priest decides that he wants to get married and because he cannot get what he wants he abandons Holy Mother Church and he joins and episcopalian church. Now this priest is instituted as a priest in the episcopalian church and he starts to celebrate the liturgy there. Do you believe that his consecration during the Sunday’s episcopalian liturgy is licit and valid?

 

[FrDavid96]

Originally Posted by FrDavid96
…
Let me take the quote you provided:

“By virtue of his holy orders and episcopal office”

Now, let me change it to this:

“By virtue of his holy orders -]and episcopal office/-]”

Would you not agree that I’ve changed the meaning of the sentence?

No.

I’ve waited to see if you would offer any explanation, but you haven’t.

Your answer here makes it abundantly clear that you have simply decided to disagree with me, regardless of what I might say.

 

[5Loaves]

I think that a lot of people here just spend quite sometime talking only about what a Bishop can and cannot do, and maybe the also discuss what he is allowed and not allowed to do. However,** it looks like that nobody is focusing on the recipient of the sacrament. **For the sacrament to be valid it is not sufficient that the there is a valid minister, there are also a few other conditions attached.

I am leaving this specific topic in the hands of Br. JR and Fr. David but I am going to look at a different case.

It has been spoken to- here is one instance:

…and as you’ve said “If the bishop [priest] is already suspended, he only aggravates the situation for himself and maybe for the recipient of the sacrament.” Are we in agreement that as to OP’s question, OP was validly and illicitly given the Sacrament of Confirmation?
JReducation;8998718:

Yessss!

 

[FrDavid96]

…
A validly ordained catholic priest decides that he wants to get married and because he cannot get what he wants he abandons Holy Mother Church and he joins and episcopalian church. Now this priest is instituted as a priest in the episcopalian church and he starts to celebrate the liturgy there.

Do you believe that his consecration during the Sunday’s episcopalian liturgy is licit and valid?

I edited the original a bit, to concentrate on the last paragraph and emphasize the questions.

No, it is not licit. No question about it.

Valid? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer truly could go either way. It could potentially be valid, but that doesn’t mean that it would always be valid.
There are other things to consider here and there’s just not enough information to say a definite yes or no. Depending on the circumstances (others, that were not mentioned in the question) it might be valid or an invalid attempt.

 

[Cristiano]

It has been spoken to- here is one instance:

I stand corrected, when I said “nobody” I improperly used an absolute term to describe what I perceived as a general lack of focus on that specific. Thanks.

 

[5Loaves]

A validly ordained catholic priest decides that he wants to get married and because he cannot get what he wants he abandons Holy Mother Church and he joins and episcopalian church. Now this priest is instituted as a priest in the episcopalian church and he starts to celebrate the liturgy there. Do you believe that his consecration during the Sunday’s episcopalian liturgy is licit and valid?

A validly ordained Catholic priest can never licitly celebrate the Mass in an ecclesial community, “church”, Episcopal or any other. The rest of your additions to the priest’s status have no effect since it is illicit to celebrate the Mass except within the Catholic Church. And if he is ordained in the Latin Church he cannot licitly celebrate in any of the 22 other Catholic Churches (Maronite, Melkite, UGCC, etc.) without the appropriate “bi-ritual” faculties, faculties in two ritual Churches, or permission of the ordinary (and visa versa).

In formally joining an ecclesial community, “church”, Episcopal or any other, he additionally has excommunicated himself from the Catholic church. (I’m assuming you mean Catholic, not catholic as you’re written.)