SSPX Confirmation

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLMassAcolyte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TLMassAcolyte

Guest
Hi, I am just wondering are there many people on this who were Confirmed by an SSPX Bishop or even Confirmed conditionally? Who was the Bishop? Has it ever caused a little trouble when trying to do something in the Novus Ordo, marrige etc…? and would anybody recommend taking the opportunity of being Confirmed conditionally by one of the Bishops?
Pax Christi,
Kieran
 
I was confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Never had any problems whatsoever.

SSPX Confirmations are NOT invalid.

The SSPX doesn’t permit any of its priests to confirm, except in periculo mortis.

Only their bishops confirm.
 
TLMassAcolyte said:
Hi, I am just wondering are there many people on this who were Confirmed by an SSPX Bishop or even Confirmed conditionally? Who was the Bishop? Has it ever caused a little trouble when trying to do something in the Novus Ordo, marrige etc…? and would anybody recommend taking the opportunity of being Confirmed conditionally by one of the Bishops?
Pax Christi,
Kieran
Click to expand...
Kieran,
Confirmation by an SSPX bishop is vaild but illicit.

This is according to the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 886 §1 A Bishop in his own diocese may lawfully administer the sacrament of confirmation even to the faithful who are not his subjects, unless there is an express prohibition by their own Ordinary.

§2 In order lawfully to administer confirmation in another diocese, unless it be to his own subjects, a Bishop needs the permission, at least reasonably presumed, of the diocesan Bishop.
 
I was confirmed by Bishop Williamson.

With the confusion in the Church today, and with the sacraments being tampered with, I think it would be prudent to be conditionally re-confirmed by an SSPX Bishop. Their confirmations are unquestionably valid.

There have been so many stories of priests using an invalid form for consecrating the host, using the wrong words for baptism, etc., that it would not surprise me one bit to learn that some bishops are not confirming with the correct form.

I forget what diocese this was in, but several years ago there were priests “baptising” by using a completely invalid form. I think it was “in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Life Force”. The Bishop sent out over 300 letters to those baptized by these priests informing them that they needed to be rebaptized.

In my opinion, in todays crisis it is better to be safe than sorry. Based on that, I would say it is prudent to be re-confirmed by an SSPX Bishop… and there are many people do just that.
 
Two of my sisters were confirmed last fall by Bishop Tissier. It was the most reverent confirmation Mass I have been to. I have no doubt that every rubric was followed and that their confirmations were valid.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Two of my sisters were confirmed last fall by Bishop Tissier. It was the most reverent confirmation Mass I have been to. I have no doubt that every rubric was followed and that their confirmations were valid.
Click to expand...
All SSPX Bishops as well as all other Traditional Bishops have no jurisdiction. That is a fact. The SSPX Bishops were consecrated as non-jurisdictional Bishops and they operate under supplied jurisdiction…that is the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in the case of necessity.

If all was well in the Church these “Traditional Bishop” confirmations would be valid but illicit…but all is not well. So when someone decides to tell you that these confirmations are in fact illicit…they are implicitly stating that there is no ecclesiological problem in the Church…that all is well. That should be enough to tell you not to listen to them.

Gorman
 
gorman64 said:
All SSPX Bishops as well as all other Traditional Bishops have no jurisdiction. That is a fact. The SSPX Bishops were consecrated as non-jurisdictional Bishops and they operate under supplied jurisdiction…that is the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in the case of necessity.

If all was well in the Church these “Traditional Bishop” confirmations would be valid but illicit…but all is not well. So when someone decides to tell you that these confirmations are in fact illicit…they are implicitly stating that there is no ecclesiological problem in the Church…that all is well. That should be enough to tell you not to listen to them.

Gorman
Click to expand...
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned this is just an out right lie.

It is correct that these bishops do not have any jurisdiction. They do not have any becuase they are unlawfully ordained.

They are suspended at the time of their ordinations, just as all SSPX priests are, becasue of this.
 
ByzCath said:
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned this is just an out right lie.

It is correct that these bishops do not have any jurisdiction. They do not have any becuase they are unlawfully ordained.

They are suspended at the time of their ordinations, just as all SSPX priests are, becasue of this.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the confirmation situation is hazy. It would seem logical but the confirmations were not found named in this document:

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm
Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e, contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid (cf. Code of Canon Law c.144
Click to expand...
 
Is jurisdiction only required for Confirmation and Confession?

If so, then there is no doubt to the validity of the other Sacraments, correct?
 
Seminarian_Matt said:
Is jurisdiction only required for Confirmation and Confession?

If so, then there is no doubt to the validity of the other Sacraments, correct?
Click to expand...
I’m going to guess that you were typing while I was posting.😉 See above post. Marriage requires jurisdiction. Also, as an aside, the SSPX also has no jurisdiction to grant annullments which they’ve done (not sure if they’re still doing them).
 
ByzCath said:
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned this is just an out right lie.

It is correct that these bishops do not have any jurisdiction. They do not have any becuase they are unlawfully ordained.

They are suspended at the time of their ordinations, just as all SSPX priests are, becasue of this.
Click to expand...
Well, David, I wouldn’t call you a liar…I would just think you were mistaken.🙂

You are mistaken. You don’t admit to the problems that many of us actually do see…so it’s a waste of time to discuss this with you…simply because you don’t see the problem. I am merely suggesting that those who do see the problem pay no attention to you.

Gorman
 
gorman64 said:
Well, David, I wouldn’t call you a liar…I would just think you were mistaken.🙂

You are mistaken. You don’t admit to the problems that many of us actually do see…so it’s a waste of time to discuss this with you…simply because you don’t see the problem. I am merely suggesting that those who do see the problem pay no attention to you.

Gorman
Click to expand...
Out of your purview unless you know exactly who “see the problem” and have intereviewed everyone that you know for sure sees some mystery problems to make sure they indeed to. 😉 We’re not going to get personal here are we?:hmmm:
 
Hi, Thanks I think it might be best to receive the Sacrament conditionally from SSPX but I am trying to find out the formula and oil used at my Novus Ordo Confirmation… even as it is though I am not sure to its valid. What I was worrying out about more is what conditions do the Society put forward…like do I have to be attending their Masses… I don’t like attending the Novus Ordo…but I’ll probably go to a reverent one if thats the only option but I realy don’t like it, it only makes me more angry sometimes and if there’s ever an Indult Mass on (once a month) I always attend. The SSPX don’t have a Mass in my diocese,
I have one question I would realy love answered, do you have to sign anything if you are being Confirmed by the Society?and I suppose I am issued with a certificate? .
Thanks
Kieran
 
TLMassAcolyte said:
Hi, I am just wondering are there many people on this who were Confirmed by an SSPX Bishop or even Confirmed conditionally? Who was the Bishop? Has it ever caused a little trouble when trying to do something in the Novus Ordo, marrige etc…? and would anybody recommend taking the opportunity of being Confirmed conditionally by one of the Bishops?
Pax Christi,
Kieran
Click to expand...
I was confirmed by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. It was a wonderful experience to say the least.
 
Will the FSSP or other indult groups do a conditional confirmation? There would be absolutely no doubt at all to their validity.
 
Seminarian_Matt said:
Is jurisdiction only required for Confirmation and Confession?

If so, then there is no doubt to the validity of the other Sacraments, correct?
Click to expand...
Jurisdiction is required for the Sacraments of Confession and Marriage.

A validly Ordained Bishop may validly confer the Sacrament of Confirmation without any jurisdiction. A priest generally requires jurisdiction to Confirm
 
TLMassAcolyte said:
Hi, Thanks I think it might be best to receive the Sacrament conditionally from SSPX but I am trying to find out the formula and oil used at my Novus Ordo Confirmation… even as it is though I am not sure to its valid. What I was worrying out about more is what conditions do the Society put forward…like do I have to be attending their Masses… I don’t like attending the Novus Ordo…but I’ll probably go to a reverent one if thats the only option but I realy don’t like it, it only makes me more angry sometimes and if there’s ever an Indult Mass on (once a month) I always attend. The SSPX don’t have a Mass in my diocese,
I have one question I would realy love answered, do you have to sign anything if you are being Confirmed by the Society?and I suppose I am issued with a certificate? .
Thanks
Kieran
Click to expand...
They won’t make you sign anything, but they will want to make sure you are properly catechised. When I was confirmed, I had to answer some basic questions and have certain prayers memorized (act of faith, hope, and charity, etc).

I would call a SSPX Church and ask to speak to a priest. He will be able to answer all of your questions and probably arrange for you to be confirmed.
 
Brendan said:
Jurisdiction is required for the Sacraments of Confession and Marriage.

A validly Ordained Bishop may validly confer the Sacrament of Confirmation without any jurisdiction. A priest generally requires jurisdiction to Confirm
Click to expand...
Brenden,
This is not what Canon 886 says, here it is again.

Can. 886 §1 A Bishop in his own diocese may lawfully administer the sacrament of confirmation even to the faithful who are not his subjects, unless there is an express prohibition by their own Ordinary.

§2 In order lawfully to administer confirmation in another diocese, unless it be to his own subjects, a Bishop needs the permission, at least reasonably presumed, of the diocesan Bishop.

To confirm a bishop needs the permission of the local ordinary unless he is confirming those who are his subjects, as stated in the second paragraph.

As SSPX bishops have no jurisdiction and hence no subjects they require permission of the local ordinary.

I find it very troubling for our Church that some who claim to be in it would actively seek, and advise others to do so as well, the sacraments of initiation out side of the Church, especially from those who are not in communion with Rome. Its sad but the spirit of protestantism is alive and well.
 
ByzCath said:
Brenden,
This is not what Canon 886 says, here it is again.

Can. 886 §1 A Bishop in his own diocese may lawfully administer the sacrament of confirmation even to the faithful who are not his subjects, unless there is an express prohibition by their own Ordinary.

§2 In order lawfully to administer confirmation in another diocese, unless it be to his own subjects, a Bishop needs the permission, at least reasonably presumed, of the diocesan Bishop.

To confirm a bishop needs the permission of the local ordinary unless he is confirming those who are his subjects, as stated in the second paragraph.
Click to expand...
Nope,

You are confusing Licitity with Validity.

Article 2 SPECIFICALLY states what is required for LAWFUL administration. That is Licitity NOT Validity.

An SSPX bishop who Confirms does so Validily ( the Sacrament is truely given), but is not LICIT, not done according to the regulations set for by the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top