Traditional Confirmation

[notredame_999]

I am curious as to the process for confirmation for a Catholic who has gone through first communion, but not formally left the church. I would like to be confirmed this easter. I feel that my knowledge of the church, saints, and theology is at the very least sufficient to a standard confirmation class. I do not want to sit through a year of RICA classes.

Also, I would like my confirmation to be in the way it was done prior to Vatican II. My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to. Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?

Does a priest have to get special permission from a bishop to give a traditional pre-Vatican II confirmation?

Thank you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am curious as to the process for confirmation for a Catholic who has gone through first communion, but not formally left the church. I would like to be confirmed this easter. I feel that my knowledge of the church, saints, and theology is at the very least sufficient to a standard confirmation class. I do not want to sit through a year of RICA classes.

Also, I would like my confirmation to be in the way it was done prior to Vatican II. My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to. Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?

Does a priest have to get special permission from a bishop to give a traditional pre-Vatican II confirmation?

Thank you.

Why do you have to go to RCIA? You just need to go to confession if you’ve already received First Communion.

Why don’t you go to your TLM parish and ask the priest there.

 

[stormy99]

I am curious as to the process for confirmation for a Catholic who has gone through first communion, but not formally left the church. I would like to be confirmed this easter. I feel that my knowledge of the church, saints, and theology is at the very least sufficient to a standard confirmation class. I do not want to sit through a year of RICA classes.

Also, I would like my confirmation to be in the way it was done prior to Vatican II. My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to. Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?

Does a priest have to get special permission from a bishop to give a traditional pre-Vatican II confirmation?

Thank you.[/QUOT

**In our RCIA classes we had adults who had gone through lst communion but not conformation…they had to attend 9 months of classes…no exceptions since they had not been confirmed…it is also true that you can be confirmed if the Priest decides you can…that doesn’t happen in our Parish…it didn’t apply to me…had my own problems with a previous marriage and going through the Marriage Tribunal…

Just call and set up an appointment and ask.

stormy.

 

[JReducation]

I am curious as to the process for confirmation for a Catholic who has gone through first communion, but not formally left the church. I would like to be confirmed this easter. I feel that my knowledge of the church, saints, and theology is at the very least sufficient to a standard confirmation class. I do not want to sit through a year of RICA classes.

Also, I would like my confirmation to be in the way it was done prior to Vatican II. **My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to. **Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?

Does a priest have to get special permission from a bishop to give a traditional pre-Vatican II confirmation?

Thank you.

The bold is mine.

Through the Sacrament of Confirmation you affirm your faith and your fidelity to the Church, along with the reception of the graces of the Sacrament and the Holy Spirit.

I’m aware that the bishops of the SSPX are good men. However, as you may know, they do not have canonical status in the Catholic Church. This means that they are not authorized to confirm in any diocese.

If you approach a bishop who does not have canonical standing in the Church for the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Confirmation is valid, but ilicit. Both you and the bishop are culpable of violating canon law;. Only bishops with canonical standing can legally confirm.

The bishop is culpable because he is violating a rule. You would be culpable, because you are going to a suspended bishop when there is no canonical need to do so and you know that said bishop has no canonical standing in the Catholic Church. This means that you know that he may not confirm without the permission of the Diocesan Bishop. You know that the Diocesan Bishop is not authorized to grant that permission. Since you know all of this, then you are knowingly violating Church law by allowing yourself to be confirmed by a bishop who does not hae the legal right or authority to do so. Objectively, this creates a moral dilemma for you.

You may not want to go that route, if you’re serious about attaining full communion with the Catholic Church. Stay within the law.

I understand that one may prefer the older ritual. If it’s available through a bishop who has canonical status, that would be great. If the older ritual is not available, the current ritual is just as valid and legal.

You may want to ask your pastor about your situation. In some dioceses they allow Catholics in situations such as your own to be confirmed at the Easter Vigil. However, this is not automatic. Many dioceses do not allow this. Some bishops reserve Confirmation during the Easter Vigil only for those who are being received into the Church. Everyone else, including an adult Catholic who was never confirmed, must go through Confirmation with the bishop.

You may be allowed to attend classes with the RCIA, but you would not be confirmed with them. You would be confirmed by the Diocesan bishop at a time and place of his choosing.

We Catholics have no choice in this matter. Confirmation is properly the Bishop’s sacrament. He decides who can confirm in his diocese. This is where you get into a glitch by asking an SSPX bishop to confirm you. You would be overstepping the authority of the bishop who has jurisdiction over you. The SSPX bishop is not your Ordinary. Your Diocesan Bishop is your Ordinary.

I don’t know what they do in FSSP parishes, since the FSSP may not become bishops. MY GUESS is that the local bishop would agree to use the older ritual. That’s only my guess.

As far as instruction prior to confirmation, that will depend on two people, you and the pastor. He will tell you his requirements and you agree or not. Again, you need to be careful here too. If you go to a parish that is not your own, the pastor is bound by Canon Law to request permission from your pastor to admit you to the sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony and Confirmation. They usually give you some kind of form to take back to your pastor for him to sign. Most pastors sign it with grace, if you’re not going over their head.

It would be a good idea to ask your local pastor if you may go to the local FSSP parish for Confirmation. He will not deny you. They just have a duty to keep track of where their parishioners receive the sacraments.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

I really wish that I could have had a traditional confirmation. I really felt robbed on what should have been a very special day. It was just so awful. I could not believe how protestantized it all was. The music was so uninspiring and the church looked like a fancy hotel lobby; very common here in CA. The crucifix wasn’t visible when walking in; it was suspended from the ceiling over the entrance and it had a weird sheet metal Jesus trying to escape the cross (perhaps to seek refuge in a real church!). I felt so uncomfortable and guilty for feeling the way I did.

Anyway…instead of RCIA trying attending an Adult Confirmation class. The run about 4 weeks long. That us the route I took.

 

[dconklin]

As I understand it, RCIA is for people that fit in one of these categories: RCIA is for people who are: Unbaptized – OR – Baptized in another Christian tradition – OR – Baptized Catholic but have not been Confirmed or received Eucharist and want to become fully-initiated Catholic Christians. The Pastor or his delegate should determine your readiness. Very little in the Church is determined by self appraisal.

Do you get more gifts or graces in a traditional Confirmation? Or is this wish only based on personal wants? The Holy Spirit is the same no matter where or how the sacrament is bestowed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As I understand it, RCIA is for people that fit in one of these categories: RCIA is for people who are: Unbaptized – OR – Baptized in another Christian tradition – OR – Baptized Catholic but have not been Confirmed or received Eucharist and want to become fully-initiated Catholic Christians. The Pastor or his delegate should determine your readiness. Very little in the Church is determined by self appraisal.

Do you get more gifts or graces in a traditional Confirmation? Or is this wish only based on personal wants? The Holy Spirit is the same no matter where or how the sacrament is bestowed.

RCIA is the Rite of Christian Initation of Adults. In an ideal world this would only contain catechumens, those who have not been baptized. In an ideal world there would be a separate class for those baptized in another Christian tradition and another class for Catholics who have not been confirmed.

That is in the ideal world. We are spread thin and we must work with the resources we have and some of the material in the RCIA program is the same material that the other two would get so many dioceses have combined all of these into the RCIA program.

I know there are traditional parishes where they celebrate all the Sacraments according to the older rite. I would talk with the pastor of my parish about this and see if that is the case near you.

If this is not the case and your bishop does not confirm using the old rite then I would suggest that you stay with the Church and have your confirmation done as your pastor recommends. I would talk this over with my spiritual director as well.

As you seem to prefer the EF Mass, have you spoken to the priest who celebrates that at the parish/chapel you attend?

 

[puzzleannie]

I . I would like to be confirmed this easter. I feel that my knowledge of the church, saints, and theology is at the very least sufficient to a standard confirmation class. I do not want to sit through a year of RICA classes.

Also, I would like my confirmation to be in the way it was done prior to Vatican II. My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to. Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?

.

in this diocese adult Catholics are confirmed by the bishop in a celebration at Pentecost, not at the Easter Vigil with RCIA, and they participate in adult confirmation preparation suited to their needs, not in RCIA. For those who are well catechized that is a 10-12 week course prescribed the by office of catechetics.

What you want is irrelevant. The bishop of the diocese decides how confirmation is celebrated, and he will go by the sacramental rubrics of the Church, not by personal preference. The first prerequisite for receiving the Holy Spirit is just that, receptivity, that is humility and meekness and submission to His will as expressed in the teachings of the Church he guides and protects.

 

[Chatter163]

Does a priest have to get special permission from a bishop to give a traditional pre-Vatican II confirmation?

Outside of the Easter Vigil Mass, the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation.

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

The Archbishop performed the confirmation and you’d think since he was there it would have been much more reverent. He had on a wireless mic and sang along to every bad song. electric bass, drums, big strummed guitars…It was like watching an awful Baptist concert on The Bible Network. I still feel like they should have took a vote during the planning stages of the event asking all of us that were to be confirmed what we would prefer. I guess I would have settled for a more conservative NO mass.

 

[Skeptic92]

I am curious as to the process for confirmation for a Catholic who has gone through first communion, but not formally left the church. I would like to be confirmed this easter. I feel that my knowledge of the church, saints, and theology is at the very least sufficient to a standard confirmation class. I do not want to sit through a year of RICA classes.

Also, I would like my confirmation to be in the way it was done prior to Vatican II. My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to. Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?

Does a priest have to get special permission from a bishop to give a traditional pre-Vatican II confirmation?

Thank you.

A Priest can’t celebrate confirmation in the EF, only a Bishop can, apart from the Easter Vigil again, however you can approach one of these two orders :Fraternal Society of St Peter or Institute of Christ High Priest Soverign King.

Both of those orders celebrate the EF exclusively, so all there confirmations, baptisms etc are all by the Old Rite, so you’ll be able to have a Confirmation by the 1962 Missal.

 

[Glenoy]

My first option is not the SSPX, but I will go there if I have to.

Dear Notredame,

I am glad that you have thought those words I quoted above. How come did I say that? It is because I attended a mass this morning offered by a SSPX priest. My travel to over a hundred kilometers of distance paid off because there I learned that Bishop Fellay, SSPX will arrive tomorrow there in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines to administer the sacrament of Confirmation.

After the mass, the priest told the faithfuls that many of the candidates for confirmation failed the oral exam by Fr. Daniels. So there I learned that a candidate should be catechized. I mean they should know their faith and the sacrament they are going to receive. So the priest, a former diocesan priest, ( I do not like the idea of calling them former “novus ordo” priest) performed a marathon catechism that day.

I asked the young man beside me of the poor result. So he answered me that it is so because many of the candidates are new to tradition. That means to say that they have no strong foundation in the hands of diocesan clergy.

Having learned how zealous the SSPX priests are, I leave no room of doubt for the validity of the sacraments they confer.

Before I end this, allow me to tell you that six months ago our diocesan bishop together with our parish priest conferred a sacrament of confirmation. From what I saw, there was a difference between the bishop and the priest in giving the sacrament. Aside from crossing the head of a candidate with oil, our bishop mumbles a word and slapped them in the jaw. While on the other line, our parish priest was just crossing their heads with oil and did not say anything, nor even slap.

Maybe you will ask me what is my point? My point is that if you are so concerned to receive a valid Confirmation for sure, then go to them as what you have said above. But others may try to hold you back in the name of technicality and legality with regards to the SSPX bishops’ functions in the church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Notredame,

I am glad that you have thought those words I quoted above. How come did I say that? It is because I attended a mass this morning offered by a SSPX priest. My travel to over a hundred kilometers of distance paid off because there I learned that Bishop Fellay, SSPX will arrive tomorrow there in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines to administer the sacrament of Confirmation.

After the mass, the priest told the faithfuls that many of the candidates for confirmation failed the oral exam by Fr. Daniels. So there I learned that a candidate should be catechized. I mean they should know their faith and the sacrament they are going to receive. So the priest, a former diocesan priest, ( I do not like the idea of calling them former “novus ordo” priest) performed a marathon catechism that day.

I asked the young man beside me of the poor result. So he answered me that it is so because many of the candidates are new to tradition. That means to say that they have no strong foundation in the hands of diocesan clergy.

Having learned how zealous the SSPX priests are, I leave no room of doubt for the validity of the sacraments they confer.

Before I end this, allow me to tell you that six months ago our diocesan bishop together with our parish priest conferred a sacrament of confirmation. From what I saw, there was a difference between the bishop and the priest in giving the sacrament. Aside from crossing the head of a candidate with oil, our bishop mumbles a word and slapped them in the jaw. While on the other line, our parish priest was just crossing their heads with oil and did not say anything, nor even slap.

Maybe you will ask me what is my point? My point is that if you are so concerned to receive a valid Confirmation for sure, then go to them as what you have said above. But others may try to hold you back in the name of technicality and legality with regards to the SSPX bishops’ functions in the church.

The SSPX bishops have no function within the Church. That is the statement from the Pope so if he is the others you are talking about then you are talking about and encouraging disobedience to the Holy Father, not a good act at all.

To have a valid and licit confirmation it must be done by your local bishop.

 

[Glenoy]

if he is the others you are talking about then you are talking about and encouraging disobedience to the Holy Father, not a good act at all.

ByzCath,

From what planet you get the idea that the “others” word that I used refers to the pope or even included the pope? Do not play “what ifs” and then use some great title of a person, for instance here the pope, and then making conclusions that I sinned against his authority by saying “not a good act at all”.

If there is anything that you do not understand or needs clarification, then ask me first. Do not play mind guessing and passing conclusions out of your own making.

You hit me below the belt. And what is worse is that you are misleading readers and most likely they will believe your strong comment on me. Please do not do it again because it “is not a good act all”. That quote is taken from you, not mine.

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

I definitely see why Byzcath had the response he did. I don’t think he was being judgmental or trying to frame you. You said “others” in a very vague context. So, whether or not you are referring to the pope or laymen it is still not a good act as the SSPX are not authorized to perform these sacraments.

Personally, I agree with a lot that the SSPX have to say and I would love to attend a mass but given their current position in the church I won’t be there until things have changed. There are many traditional options available here in SoCal and its unfortunate that other parts of the country only have the NO.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

(snipped for space)
Having learned how zealous the SSPX priests are, I leave no room of doubt for the validity of the sacraments they confer.

But others may try to hold you back in the name of technicality and legality with regards to the SSPX bishops’ functions in the church.

ByzCath,

From what planet you get the idea that the “others” word that I used refers to the pope or even included the pope? Do not play “what ifs” and then use some great title of a person, for instance here the pope, and then making conclusions that I sinned against his authority by saying “not a good act at all”.

If there is anything that you do not understand or needs clarification, then ask me first. Do not play mind guessing and passing conclusions out of your own making.

You hit me below the belt. And what is worse is that you are misleading readers and most likely they will believe your strong comment on me. Please do not do it again because it “is not a good act all”. That quote is taken from you, not mine.

Ater reading the your reply to Notre Dame, I too, thought exactly what Br. David articulated in his reply to you, especially regarding the bolded portion above.

Whle I commend the SSPX for wanting to uphold the ancient traditions of the Church,
it seems to me that the one tradition that they do not like to follow is the one of obedience.
***The SSPX has made the choice ***to be outside of the Church,
***the Church did not do this to them. ***
Therefore, any sacrament conferred by them, while valid, is illicit.
Which begs the question,
why would anyone who claims to be a “traditionally minded Catholic”, disobey the successor of Peter?

 

[Timothy17]

We are clearly in a difficult position. On one hand we have every right under law to worship in the manner the EF rites provide, and as the SSPX offers, as it has never been supressed or abrogated, and as every Catholic priest appears to have almost what amounts to a right to celebrate it. On the other hand, we have the dubious legal status of the SSPX, which status flirts with open schism.

There is nothing illcit at all about desiring to be confirmed in the Traditional manner or receiving the Sacraments as they have always been offered. We cannot begin to count the Saints these rites have nourished and produced for Christendom for millenia ; nonetheless, the Apostlic rule of communion with the Bishop of Rome is equally authoritative. If one was to follow the SSPX as a voice of dissent or opposition to Rome, undoubtedly one would be in open schism with Rome ; on the other hand, the desire for the rites and teachings of the Church from time immemorial can hardly itself be illicit, for such would place the Church of today in schism with the Church of yesterday, which is an impossibility. It is perhaps for such a reason as this that the Church, being lead by her Holy Father in earth, has opened up and insured the provision of these rites and Sacraments in the Traditional form and manner, such as provided by the FSSP. In this way, we can enjoy these rites and Sacraments without being in fear of schism with Rome.

Let us pray, then, that the Truth triumphs with Love and the Church emerges from all of this stronger than ever.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ater reading the your reply to Notre Dame, I too, thought exactly what Br. David articulated in his reply to you, especially regarding the bolded portion above.

Whle I commend the SSPX for wanting to uphold the ancient traditions of the Church,
it seems to me that the one tradition that they do not like to follow is the one of obedience.
***The SSPX has made the choice ***to be outside of the Church,
***the Church did not do this to them. ***
Therefore, any sacrament conferred by them, while valid, is illicit.
Which begs the question,
why would anyone who claims to be a “traditionally minded Catholic”, disobey the successor of Peter?

All the Sacraments as celebrated by the SSPX are valid but illict except for Marriage and Confession, as both of those need the approval of and faculties granted by the diocesen bishop, they are invalid when celebrated by the SSPX as they lack the approval and faculties.

Also any marriage annulments granted by the SSPX mean nothing as they have no right nor power to grant them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath,

From what planet you get the idea that the “others” word that I used refers to the pope or even included the pope? Do not play “what ifs” and then use some great title of a person, for instance here the pope, and then making conclusions that I sinned against his authority by saying “not a good act at all”.

If there is anything that you do not understand or needs clarification, then ask me first. Do not play mind guessing and passing conclusions out of your own making.

You hit me below the belt. And what is worse is that you are misleading readers and most likely they will believe your strong comment on me. Please do not do it again because it “is not a good act all”. That quote is taken from you, not mine.

I definitely see why Byzcath had the response he did. I don’t think he was being judgmental or trying to frame you. You said “others” in a very vague context. So, whether or not you are referring to the pope or laymen it is still not a good act as the SSPX are not authorized to perform these sacraments.

Personally, I agree with a lot that the SSPX have to say and I would love to attend a mass but given their current position in the church I won’t be there until things have changed. There are many traditional options available here in SoCal and its unfortunate that other parts of the country only have the NO.

Ater reading the your reply to Notre Dame, I too, thought exactly what Br. David articulated in his reply to you, especially regarding the bolded portion above.

Whle I commend the SSPX for wanting to uphold the ancient traditions of the Church,
it seems to me that the one tradition that they do not like to follow is the one of obedience.
***The SSPX has made the choice ***to be outside of the Church,
***the Church did not do this to them. ***
Therefore, any sacrament conferred by them, while valid, is illicit.
Which begs the question,
why would anyone who claims to be a “traditionally minded Catholic”, disobey the successor of Peter?

I think these two responses are good enough but I will add this.

You said, “others may try to hold you back in the name of technicality and legality with regards to the SSPX bishops’ functions in the church.”

The Pope has stated that the SSPX has no legitimate ministry within the Church, so you must mean for him to be part of the “others” you speak of as he has made a statement on the SSPX bishops’s functions in the Church, basically that they have no function within the Church. If you disagree with this then you are disagreeing with the Holy Father regardless of what any “others” may say. If you disagree with the Holy Father then you are disobedient in this matter. What else can you claim?

 

[Spirithound]

Does anyone know of any non-SSPX parishes that offer this traditional confirmation?.

This would be a lot easier if you told us where you’re from