confirmed by Bp Williamson

[dans0622]

“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

That is not ecclesiastical law. It is from a conversation of those who put the 1983 Code together.

Dan

 

[curlycool89]

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

This gets fun (complicated) sometimes.

We had a Deacon ordained at our college, which is run by a religious congregation, by the bishop emeritus of the diocese. The Superior of the congregation had to give faculties to ordain, the local bishop had to give permission to ordain in his diocese, and the bishop emeritus needed faculties from the Vatican (if I remember right) in order to perform an ordination. Apparently the Nuncio was involved at some point.

So as Br. JR was saying, we go a long way to make sure things are licit.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is not ecclesiastical law. It is from a conversation of those who put the 1983 Code together.

Dan

So what are we to think here?

First you provide a quote that “proves” your point.

Then, I explain that what I am saying is the same as what your own sources are saying.
You deny it.
I prove that they are the same.

Once I do that, you (1) say that it doesn’t mean what it says (2) downplay the authority of your own quote. Which, by the way, was not in question until I showed that it agreed with what I have been saying.

Every time you post here, you’re making it more and more obvious that your only goal is to say that I’m wrong; and it won’t make any difference what I say, you’re just going to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Episcopal ordination all by itself is not sufficient for a bishop to legitimately minister. He also must have the faculties to do so, whether those faculties come by virtue of office, from the law, by delegation or whatever other words might be appropriate for the particular situation. But ordination all by itself is not sufficient.

 

[Mike30]

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

What if the one being confirmed doesn’t know that the Bishop is not allowed to confirm, but on the other hand fully belives that it is permissable to do so?

Would that confirmation then be valid?

 

[5Loaves]

… I say he does *not * since he can confirm simply because of being an ordained bishop.

He can, but he may not do so without having faculties/permission from the ordinary-- not all ordinaries are bishops-- the one, *single *,ordinary whom Rome recognizes as the guy with the canonical authority, in charge of that territory–be it a physical boundary or be it an Order such as Order of Saint Francis, or the Military Ordinariate etc.

It’s** the potentia**l 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.

Father says “it’s the potential”, what I am terming as he “can” but he “may not”.

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.

I suggest you call your local Tribunal. I’m sure they will affirm this. Chasing down these renegade priests, and I gather bishops, and notifying the local faithful in the territory is part of what the Tribunal does. I recall our canon law teacher saying around here it tends to be priests who have had their faculties suspended back home coming from Mexico and the Philippines, typically performing “marriages”, with serious consequences for the faithful involved as Brother JR has so clearly indicated.

 

[JReducation]

What if the one being confirmed doesn’t know that the Bishop is not allowed to confirm, but on the other hand fully belives that it is permissable to do so?

Would that confirmation then be valid?

I was not thinking about validity here. That’s really up to the local chancery to decide, since they would be the ones asking all of the necessary questions.

My concern is with the morality of it. If I know that a clergyman is suspended and if I know that suspended means that his right to celebrate the sacraments and to preach have been rescinded, then it is against the law for him to do so. The Church calls it illicit the world calls it illegal, same difference.

If I knowingly participate in something that I need not participate, it raises a moral question about me. Obviously the cleric in question is objectively culpable of sin. The Church has taken away his privilege to celebrate the sacraments and he is ignoring her legitimate authority. It takes two in this case, a bishop and a confirmandi. If the confirmandi is an adult with knowledge of the canonical condition of the bishop and does not care, what does that say about him?

Canonically, it can be interpreted as a schismatic attitude on the part of the person being confirmed, because he is placing himself outside of the law of the Church. All of this would have to be discussed with the home diocese. It’s usually done through the pastor.

Obviously, if I have no idea of the significance of a suspension or no idea that the person is suspended, then I am not complicit in the defiance.

We have to remember that the morality of the situation is as important as the validity. I can receive a sacrament and commit a grave sin at the same time, if I’m not supposed to be receiving it.

Again, don’t bring the question to a forum. Take it to a pastor who will ask all of the right questions and if necessary will ask the chancery for (name removed by moderator)ut.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

All issues aside of the illicitness of the Society clergy, it is a fact that Rome refers to the Bishops as Bishops, and has already decided upon the validity of the Sacraments the Society’s clergy confers, consiering the Society’s current status.

Rome accepts the Society Priests’ ability to act as the Pope’s agent in the absolution of sins which is referred to the Pope, such as abortion.

It is of course a sticky issue, and prudence would dictate that if you doubt the validity of your Confirmation, you ought to consult with a clergyman you trust for your own peace of mind.

I was confirmed during the turmoil of the mid 70’s. I asked for conditional confirmation from a Society priest, at he behest of an aquaintance. This priest who counseled me, after discussion, that my confirmation was valid, and I have peace of mind.