confirmed by Bp Williamson

[Cristiano]

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).

You are correct and I think that everybody will agree on this, and that was the first item of the question. I also wanted to lead people to focus on the validity of the consecration and that is the second item of my question. Fr. David made a very strong statement when he said “maybe”. The truth is that the validity of the sacrament does not depend only on the ontological status of the individual, there is more beside the fact that he can or he cannot confect the Eucharist for a consecration to be valid.

 

[runningdude]

What I’ve gathered from this thread, based on Brother JR’s and Father David’s extensive commentary is that the OP’s confirmation would be valid, however it was merely valid.

Bishop Williamson, while in a state of suspension or excommunication (the timing is unclear), lacked the faculties to legally celebrate the anointing. Thus while imprinted on the soul, the OP’s status as a Catholic in standing is questionable. He would have to take additional steps to regularize his personal status in the church, such as properly documenting the confirmation, having any potential excommunications lifted, and/or attending confession. Best to sort this out with one’s priest.

That mere validity of the sacraments (whether Holy Orders, Confirmation or Communion) does not grant any rights or privileges within the Catholic Church, seems to the be the point that our good Father and Brother were making. Answering only the technical question of validity, while neglecting the fundamental issue of licitity could mislead the OP, and potentially put his or her soul in peril.

 

[Cristiano]

What I’ve gathered from this thread, based on Brother JR’s and Father David’s extensive commentary is that the OP’s confirmation would be valid, however it was merely valid…

I am not sure about that what you gathered is correct. They kept asking questions to the legality and on why someone would ask a minister to perform something illegal. That brings us to the realm of the intentions of the minister and of the recipient. There is a minimum requirement for the intentions on both parts to ensure the validity of the sacrament. Could the request for an illegal minister of a sacrament when a legal one is available jeopardize the validity of the sacrament itself because the intent of the recipient? Is the purpose of doing something illegally when it could be done legally aligned with the intent of sanctification?
Catholic Encyclopedia (Intention):

As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament.

I am no expert in sacramental theology and so I am just asking questions because I do not know the answers.

 

[JReducation]

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

Permission is granting faculties.

There are two aspects to faculties.

1. Faculties come by virtue of ordination. For example, a bishop can ordain. However, if the bishop ordains without faculties from the diocesan bishop or the religious superior, the ordination is illicit and the bishop- and the newly ordained priest are automatically suspended. If he ordains another bishop, he is automatically excommunicated.
2. This brings us to the next level of law. Why is he suspended or excommunicated if he has faculties granted by ordination? You need faculties from a canonical authority to use the faculties that you received by virtue of ordination in his jurisdiction. You have faculties to ordain, but you do not have faculties to ordain or confirm where ever you please. You must get those faculties from the proper canonical authority.

Every priest, by virtue of ordination has faculties to absolve from sin. However, he cannot use those faculties in my religious house without faculties from me. If he attempts to grant absolution to anyone in my religious house, that absolution is invalid, despite the fact that he has faculties by virtue of ordination. He must have faculties from the canonical authority. If he has faculties from the local bishop, he does not need them from me. If he’s from another jurisdiction then he needs faculties.

What we’re trying to explain is that ordination grants faculties to celebrate the sacrament, but it is not enough. A canonical authority must grant faculties to use those faculties in his jurisdiction.

---

Someone else said that they know of an individual who was confirmed by an SSPX bishop and entered the FSSP. The FSSP did not ask for another confirmation. In this case, the confirmation by the SSPX bishop is treated as valid but illegal. There is no need to confirm again. The moral burden falls on the bishop who confirmed illegally, not on the confirmandi, unless the confirmandi knew that it was illegal and blew it off. This has happened. People know that it’s illegal and they blow off the law as if it were worthless. In that case, there is a grave moral issue involved. The person must reconcile with the Church, because such an attitude is a schismatic attitude. It is setting oneself outside of the law. Church’s laws must be followed by all Catholics. Laws have a hierarchy of gravity, just like civil law. A Parking Ticket is not the same as a DUI.

If the person does not know that it’s illegal, then it’s the bishop’s moral problem, not the confirmandi. That’s why Father keeps taking us back to the first question, “Does the bishop have faculties to use his faculties in someone else’s diocese?” Ordination grants him faculties to confirm, but not faculties to confirm in my diocese. Only the pope or the diocesan bishop can grant those.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am not sure about that what you gathered is correct. They kept asking questions to the legality and on why someone would ask a minister to perform something illegal. That brings us to the realm of the intentions of the minister and of the recipient. There is a minimum requirement for the intentions on both parts to ensure the validity of the sacrament. Could the request for an illegal minister of a sacrament when a legal one is available jeopardize the validity of the sacrament itself because the intent of the recipient? Is the purpose of doing something illegally when it could be done legally aligned with the intent of sanctification?

I am no expert in sacramental theology and so I am just asking questions because I do not know the answers.

The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia uses very old language, but the rule remains the same. We just don’t call people imbecile. They are mentally disabled or mentally ill, which are not the same. But they didn’t know that when they wrote this article. Those rules have changed. The rules for the disabled and for the mentally ill are not the same. They once were.

What the citation is saying takes us back to the whole question of what does the bishop know and what does the confirmandi know. If they know that the confirmation is illegal and they proceed anyway, the question of intent is important. The big question with the SSPX and its friends is whether or not one is placing oneself outside of the law. If one is, there is a schismatic attitude here. This aggravates the situation. I can even invalidate the sacrament, depending on other factors. But we can’t even go there until we begin with the intention.
We don’t know what’s in people’s heads until they tell us. We go by objective assessments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cristiano]

…We just don’t call people imbecile…

Are you sure? Maybe the Church doesn’t but I have been called that name several times when I was disagreeable.

 

[JReducation]

Are you sure? Maybe the Church doesn’t but I have been called that name several times when I was disagreeable.

 

[dans0622]

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.

Hello,

It was two ways of saying the same thing so eliminating the second clause makes no difference as to the meaning of the sentence. It is the same as if I was talking about a man being ordained a presbyter and how that relates to, and produces, his ability to celebrate Mass and said that this “indicates that the presbyter, by virtue of his holy orders and presbyteral office, has this authority and faculty.”

I am sure that “office” in the original Latin was “munus” and that is not to be taken as “office” as in the office of the diocesan bishop or the office of parish priest/pastor. You could translate it as “function.” Anyway, I can just as correctly say that by virtue of his holy orders, the presbyter has the authority and faculty to celebrate/confect the Eucharist.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Permission is granting faculties. …

Hello,

I’m sorry, that is just not true. They are distinct, juridic entities. If you have access to Studia canonica, check out volume 36/1. pp. 25-58, on Permissions, Authorizations, and Faculties in canon law. If not, typical canon law commentaries might be good enough.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Permission is granting faculties.

There are two aspects to faculties.

1. Faculties come by virtue of ordination.
   …

Obviously, I’ve selected just one small part.

Here’s the point that I keep trying to make; that no one has faculties “by virtue of ordination”

It’s the potential to do something (like celebrate a Sacrament) that is there by virtue of ordination. In order to exercise that potential (that power, for lack of a better word) the cleric still needs faculties. Where those faculties come from is different but related; but no one has faculties only by ordination all by itself.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

It was two ways of saying the same thing so eliminating the second clause makes no difference as to the meaning of the sentence. It is the same as if I was talking about a man being ordained a presbyter and how that relates to, and produces, his ability to celebrate Mass and said that this “indicates that the presbyter, by virtue of his holy orders and presbyteral office, has this authority and faculty.”

I am sure that “office” in the original Latin was “munus” and that is not to be taken as “office” as in the office of the diocesan bishop or the office of parish priest/pastor. You could translate it as “function.” Anyway, I can just as correctly say that by virtue of his holy orders, the presbyter has the authority and faculty to celebrate/confect the Eucharist.

Dan

Dan,

That’s just not the case. There is a reason why the canon says ordination AND office (munus). The word and is there for a very good reason.

A priest who has been illicitly ordained certainly has ordination, but he lacks “munus” therefore he cannot licitly celebrate.

“I can just as correctly say that by virtue of his holy orders, the presbyter has the authority and faculty to celebrate/confect the Eucharist.”

If you would only read that sentence and apply that sentence to a priest ordained illicitly (but validly), you’re realize that the sentence it not true.

Ordination does not give faculties. I know that you know this.

Faculties can come from different sources; they can be delegated, they can come “by the law itself” they can come “by virtue of office” or “by mandate” but they still have to be there IN ADDITION to the ordination itself.

 

[JReducation]

Obviously, I’ve selected just one small part.

Here’s the point that I keep trying to make; that no one has faculties “by virtue of ordination”

It’s the potential to do something (like celebrate a Sacrament) that is there by virtue of ordination. In order to exercise that potential (that power, for lack of a better word) the cleric still needs faculties. Where those faculties come from is different but related; but no one has faculties only by ordination all by itself.

That’s what I’m trying to say. Just because you’re ordained a bishop and now you can confirm, does not grant you faculties to confirm. I thought I’d break it down into smaller pieces, but it does not seem make it clearer. I think I may have made it more muddy.

The permission of which I’m speaking is the faculties. It’s all one package. When you get faculties to hear confessions in a diocese, you’re getting permission as well. There are other permissions that have nothing to do with faculties. This is not the case here. This is a package deal, as I understand it or did I miss something?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hello,

I’m sorry, that is just not true. They are distinct, juridic entities. If you have access to Studia canonica, check out volume 36/1. pp. 25-58, on Permissions, Authorizations, and Faculties in canon law. If not, typical canon law commentaries might be good enough.

Dan

OK, I thought I could make this clearer and I’m just making it more muddy. Let’s try this from another perspective.

Let’s forget Bishop Williamson for a second and let’s focus on the confirmandi involved. If one knows that a particular bishop may not confirm, because he is suspended, one is complicit in breaking the law by asking said bishop to confirm.

Is that information more helpful? I hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

That’s just not the case. There is a reason why the canon says ordination AND office (munus). The word and is there for a very good reason.

A priest who has been illicitly ordained certainly has ordination, but he lacks “munus” therefore he cannot licitly celebrate.

“I can just as correctly say that by virtue of his holy orders, the presbyter has the authority and faculty to celebrate/confect the Eucharist.”

If you would only read that sentence and apply that sentence to a priest ordained illicitly (but validly), you’re realize that the sentence it not true.

Ordination does not give faculties. I know that you know this.

Faculties can come from different sources; they can be delegated, they can come “by the law itself” they can come “by virtue of office” or “by mandate” but they still have to be there IN ADDITION to the ordination itself.

Sure, illicit ordination leads to irregularities for the exercise of orders. Bishop Williamson is not able to function in the Church because of his irregular status. His ability to minister, which he has in virtue of his ordination, has been restricted. That restriction leads to at least illicit Sacraments. That’s not an issue.

Yes, “faculties” are part of ecclesiastical law. That being the case, I would like you to show me where, in any ecclesiastical law, there is specific mention made of a bishop needing or receiving a faculty in order to confirm. That’s what our disagreement is all about: you say a bishop *does *need to be granted this faculty (in some way or another) and I say he does *not * since he can confirm simply because of being an ordained bishop.

The issue of “permission” in 886.2 is evidence that no faculty is needed and no faculty can be granted. A practical example of this norm can be found in The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, which has this to say about retired bishops (whom you said would need to be granted a faculty in post #16 &18) in art. 227: "He (the bishop emeritus) retains the right to administer all the sacraments, in particular:

1. the sacrament of confirmation, with at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan Bishop." vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_en.html

This document is not granting a faculty to confirm to retired bishops, first of all. It is saying they have the right to confirm. Now, if it should happen that the bishop emeritus confirms someone without the knowledge or express permission of the diocesan bishop, there is no reason to doubt the liceity of those confirmations since there is no reason to doubt the presence of the at least reasonably presumed permission. It is only when the diocesan bishop actually restricts the retired bishop’s ministry that the confirmation would be illicit. Since the retired bishop has the *right *to administer this Sacrament, the diocesan bishop would have to have reasons for the restriction and not simply say “No.”

Not restricting a retired bishop is not the same as granting a faculty. The former is no act at all. The latter is a specific, public, juridic act.

Dan

 

[Cristiano]

Sure, illicit ordination leads to irregularities for the exercise of orders. Bishop Williamson is not able to function in the Church because of his irregular status. His ability to minister, which he has in virtue of his ordination, has been restricted. That restriction leads to at least illicit Sacraments. That’s not an issue.

Yes, “faculties” are part of ecclesiastical law. That being the case, I would like you to show me where, in any ecclesiastical law, there is specific mention made of a bishop needing or receiving a faculty in order to confirm. That’s what our disagreement is all about: you say a bishop *does *need to be granted this faculty (in some way or another) and I say he does *not * since he can confirm simply because of being an ordained bishop.

The issue of “permission” in 886.2 is evidence that no faculty is needed and no faculty can be granted. A practical example of this norm can be found in The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, which has this to say about retired bishops (whom you said would need to be granted a faculty in post #16 &18) in art. 227: "He (the bishop emeritus) retains the right to administer all the sacraments, in particular:

1. the sacrament of confirmation, with at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan Bishop." vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_en.html

This document is not granting a faculty to confirm to retired bishops, first of all. It is saying they have the right to confirm. Now, if it should happen that the bishop emeritus confirms someone without the knowledge or express permission of the diocesan bishop, there is no reason to doubt the liceity of those confirmations since there is no reason to doubt the presence of the at least reasonably presumed permission. It is only when the diocesan bishop actually restricts the retired bishop’s ministry that the confirmation would be illicit. Since the retired bishop has the *right *to administer this Sacrament, the diocesan bishop would have to have reasons for the restriction and not simply say “No.”

Not restricting a retired bishop is not the same as granting a faculty. The former is no act at all. The latter is a specific, public, juridic act.

Dan

I think that you are just looking at the bishop as present in a vacuum and that is not possible. For the sacrament to be valid you must have a minister that can administer the sacrament (and I have not seen anyone denying that) plus a set of other conditions. It appears that one of those conditions is the intent and the intent is bound to the knowledge of the legality of the sacrament. If the intent is to do something illegally then are we sure that intent is to truly do what the Church does, whether there is dissent or not? The Church does not do illegal things. However, if we follow the logic we reach the paradox of saying that it is legal to do something illegal and that is where the question about validity comes to be.

 

[dans0622]

I think that you are just looking at the bishop as present in a vacuum and that is not possible. …

Hello,

All I am trying to do is contend that it is not correct to say that a bishop needs a faculty in order to confirm. The law is clear when it comes to the issue of “faculties” and you’ll just not find an occasion, in the law, where “bishop” and “needs/obtains” and “faculty” and “confirmation” are grouped together. I have nothing to say about intention. Frankly, I’ve expended too much thought and effort on this already since it doesn’t really matter in any practical way. But, it’s a nice diversion from defending broken marriages!

Dan

 

[dans0622]

OK, I thought I could make this clearer and I’m just making it more muddy. Let’s try this from another perspective.

Let’s forget Bishop Williamson for a second and let’s focus on the confirmandi involved. If one knows that a particular bishop may not confirm, because he is suspended, one is complicit in breaking the law by asking said bishop to confirm.

Is that information more helpful? I hope. …

Hello,

Yes, you could say that. I am not sure how that relates to the issue of a “faculty to confirm.”

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

…

… I would like you to show me where, in any ecclesiastical law, there is specific mention made of a bishop needing or receiving a faculty in order to confirm. That’s what our disagreement is all about: you say a bishop *does *need to be granted this faculty (in some way or another) and I say he does *not * since he can confirm simply because of being an ordained bishop. …
Dan

“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’”
As quoted by Dans0622 in this post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8999659&postcount=48
emphasis added

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, I thought I could make this clearer and I’m just making it more muddy. Let’s try this from another perspective.

Let’s forget Bishop Williamson for a second and let’s focus on the confirmandi involved. If one knows that a particular bishop may not confirm, because he is suspended, one is complicit in breaking the law by asking said bishop to confirm.

Is that information more helpful? I hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Good point.

Discussions about “what is valid?” and “what is licit?” are one thing. They make nice academic exercises (or can).

The real heart of the matter though is “what is right?” versus “what is wrong?”

The fact that a sacrament is (or even “might be”) valid is not a reason for participating in it.

The question of “what is morally right?” is what is too often not asked in this particular context of dealing with the community mentioned.

 

[JReducation]

Hello,

Yes, you could say that. I am not sure how that relates to the issue of a “faculty to confirm.”

Dan

The answer to the OP’s question is two-fold.

1. If you were confirmed by Bishop Williamson and you knew that he was suspended, yet knowingly agreed, you are complicit in a violation of law. If you did not know or did not understand the nature of his situation, then you are not complicit.
2. It is up to the bishop of your diocese to judge if the Confirmation is valid. If it is, then so be it. If he has doubts he can confirm conditionally. The question cannot be answered on a forum, it must be answered at the chancery. The bishop has a right to make a judgment on this matter, no one else does.

The place to start is with the local pastor who will pass the question on to the chancery.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF