SSPX Confirmation

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

I did not see you mention licity or validity in your post. I got the impression that you were saying that a jurisdiction does not matter with confirmation when it does (as to licity).

I mentioned that it would be illicit but there are some who do think that it is also an issue of validity. Why would marriages not be valid yet confirmations would?

 

[AlexV]

Now now, David.

You posted rather recklessly (not to say pompously) a few weeks ago that SSPX Confirmations were NOT valid.

You were called on that error.

Let’s not slide back to the same issue.

The SSPX … even under the most stringent interpretation of the law … has VALID Confirmation.

The most basic proof of this is that there have been no conditional or other sort of Confirmations celebrated for ANYONE who stops attending SSPX liturgies. Not in Campos, either, in 2002. Nobody has been reconfirmed.

The SSPX is very strict on one point: only their bishops confirm. They do not permit priests to confirm, except in periculo mortis.

 

[Brendan]

I did not see you mention licity or validity in your post. I got the impression that you were saying that a jurisdiction does not matter with confirmation when it does (as to licity).

Note what I said in my post. I specifically mentioned validity

A validly Ordained Bishop may validly confer the Sacrament of Confirmation without any jurisdiction.

I mentioned that it would be illicit but there are some who do think that it is also an issue of validity. Why would marriages not be valid yet confirmations would?

The Sacrament of Marriage is conferred by the couple themselves. What is required for validitiy is that the defined form of the Sacrament be followed.

In the Catholic Church, that form, for Catholics, requires jurisdiction.

 

[gorman64]

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.

Dear David,

Are you a Canon Lawyer? No, right?

What authority do you possess that allows you to interpret Canon Law? None, right?

You are telling some people on this forum that their marriages are invalid…do you realise what a serious charge this is…and that you will have to answer for this…especially if you succeed in disturbing the consciences of these good people?

May I suggest that you cease with these charges before you do any more damage. If you want to discuss the jurisdiction of the SSPX in the context of the current crisis then go right ahead…if not…then be quiet…it’s for your own good.

Gorman

P.S. I think you are a little mixed up as to where to find protestantism “alive and well”.

 

[AlexV]

I wouldn’t trust anyone on Canon Law who makes the statement that SSPX CONFIRMATIONS are invalid, which David did not so long ago.

 

[BobP123]

The SSPX … even under the most stringent interpretation of the law … has VALID Confirmation.

The most basic proof of this is that there have been no conditional or other sort of Confirmations celebrated for ANYONE who stops attending SSPX liturgies. Not in Campos, either, in 2002. Nobody has been reconfirmed.

The SSPX is very strict on one point: only their bishops confirm. They do not permit priests to confirm, except in periculo mortis.

Does that mean the confirmation candidates get to keep their confirmed names?

Of course, I was just teasing you.

 

[bear06]

Now now, David.

You posted rather recklessly (not to say pompously) a few weeks ago that SSPX Confirmations were NOT valid.

You were called on that error.

Let’s not slide back to the same issue.

The SSPX … even under the most stringent interpretation of the law … has VALID Confirmation.

The most basic proof of this is that there have been no conditional or other sort of Confirmations celebrated for ANYONE who stops attending SSPX liturgies. Not in Campos, either, in 2002. Nobody has been reconfirmed.

The SSPX is very strict on one point: only their bishops confirm. They do not permit priests to confirm, except in periculo mortis.

Actually, someone on these forums, not too long ago, was confirmed in the SSPX and said he did have to go through a conditional confirmation when he returned. I don’t remember who it was but if you do a search you should find it. Or maybe that person can chime in again.

I’m curious to find out if confirmations can also be sanated.

 

[TLMassAcolyte]

Actually, someone on these forums, not too long ago, was confirmed in the SSPX and said he did have to go through a conditional confirmation when he returned. I don’t remember who it was but if you do a search you should find it. Or maybe that person can chime in again.

I’m curious to find out if confirmations can also be sanated.

Ya I remember somebody said that too…if it was me I would have refused a conditional Confirmation.

 

[AlexV]

If a priest confirmed him, sure, he should get conditional Confirmation.

If Bishop Rangel, Bishop Rifan, or Bishop de Castro Meyer, Lefebvre, Williamson, Gallerais, Fellay, etc., confirmed him…no need. His Confirmation was valid.

Again, every single priest of the Brazil group would have had to be reconfirmed. Not to mention thousands of faithful.

Didn’t happen.

The record is clear. Confirmations are valid. They do not require “sanation”, or anything of the sort. As someone who was confirmed by Lefebvre and who has had sit-down meetings with Ecclesia Dei officials, I can attest to this.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The record is clear. Confirmations are valid. They do not require “sanation”, or anything of the sort. As someone who was confirmed by Lefebvre and who has had sit-down meetings with Ecclesia Dei officials, I can attest to this.

Of course you are right. I’m surprised this conversation is even taking place. I thought everyone knew that confirmation did not require jurisdiction to be valid. Just as a Mass, or baptism, performed by a priest without jurisdiction is valid, so too is confirmation. I’ve never even heard of anyone who questioned that.

 

[bear06]

If a priest confirmed him, sure, he should get conditional Confirmation.

If Bishop Rangel, Bishop Rifan, or Bishop de Castro Meyer, Lefebvre, Williamson, Gallerais, Fellay, etc., confirmed him…no need. His Confirmation was valid.

Again, every single priest of the Brazil group would have had to be reconfirmed. Not to mention thousands of faithful.

Didn’t happen.

The record is clear. Confirmations are valid. They do not require “sanation”, or anything of the sort. As someone who was confirmed by Lefebvre and who has had sit-down meetings with Ecclesia Dei officials, I can attest to this.

Hmmm…I’ll have to search for that post again. I can’t remember if they were confirmed by a priest or not. I thought some have made the claims that the SSPX doesn’t have their priests do confirmations.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Of course you are right. I’m surprised this conversation is even taking place. I thought everyone knew that confirmation did not require jurisdiction to be valid. Just as a Mass, or baptism, performed by a priest without jurisdiction is valid, so too is confirmation. I’ve never even heard of anyone who questioned that.

Right, confirmations by bishops do not require jurisdiction to be valid but they do to be lawful.

Again, I find it hard to believe that people would actually seek and promote the reception of illict sacraments.

 

[gorman64]

Right, confirmations by bishops do not require jurisdiction to be valid but they do to be lawful.

Again, I find it hard to believe that people would actually seek and promote the reception of illict sacraments.

David,

No one is saying we should seek and promote the reception of illicit sacraments. It is your opinion that these sacraments are illicit…that is not the opinion of those who promote or receive these sacraments.

If you’d like, we can discuss the reasons that Traditional Catholics seek the traditional sacraments of the Church (the old forms of the sacraments).

Yours in Christ,

Gorman

 

[AlexV]

David seems to be confusing statements of FACT with partisan PROMOTION.

SSPX Confirmations are valid. That’s a fact. Stating it clearly = promotion of the SSPX in your view.

It’s interesting. If you wander over to the Eastern Christianity forum, you will hear our faith bashed regularly. Beautiful and cherished traditions are snidely dismissed as misguided, Latin ways.

Yet for some, it’s really all about the SSPX.

For the sake of this thread, lest we lose sight, Confirmations celebrated by SSPX bishops are valid.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

David,

No one is saying we should seek and promote the reception of illicit sacraments. It is your opinion that these sacraments are illicit…that is not the opinion of those who promote or receive these sacraments.

It is not my opinion. It is stated in Canon Law, do you wish me to repost it or can you look at it where I posted it earlier in this thread.

If you’d like, we can discuss the reasons that Traditional Catholics seek the traditional sacraments of the Church (the old forms of the sacraments).

No need to discuss that.

 

[TraditionalCath]

Hmmm…I’ll have to search for that post again. I can’t remember if they were confirmed by a priest or not. I thought some have made the claims that the SSPX doesn’t have their priests do confirmations.

the bishops in the SSPX do confirmations not the priests.

 

[Brendan]

David,

No one is saying we should seek and promote the reception of illicit sacraments. It is your opinion that these sacraments are illicit…that is not the opinion of those who promote or receive these sacraments.

If you’d like, we can discuss the reasons that Traditional Catholics seek the traditional sacraments of the Church (the old forms of the sacraments).

Yours in Christ,

Gorman

Gorman,

Under Canon Law, SSPX bishops do not have jurisdicition, so, by definition, their Confirmations are illicit.

That is a seperate issue from the Validity of the Sacrament, which no one should doubt.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This looks like a job for (dum-de-dum!) Cameron Lansing, who IS a canon lawyer, and a deacon…

 

[chotock]

I was confirmed by an SSPX priest.

I was advised to make a Profession of Faith and was well, though there is some talk of a conditional Confirmation, and quite frankly I am going to request one.

Being a double convert, there is always the thought of authority, who has it, who doesn’t. I prefer to be overly cautious rather than find myself in a bind later. Besides, I can’t get the chapel to get me proof of my confirmation making things doubly hard.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Gorman,

Under Canon Law, SSPX bishops do not have jurisdicition, so, by definition, their Confirmations are illicit.

That is a seperate issue from the Validity of the Sacrament, which no one should doubt.

Brenden,
How about the validity of a confirmation done by a SSPX, or any other schismatic, priest?