D
deMontfort
Guest
It never ceases to amaze me how deep the spirit of sedevacantism runs on this forum 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1
1ke
Guest
I have begun flagging such inappropriate postings.
1
1ke
Guest
No not yours!! The one to which you were referring!
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I guess we will see. I am trying to engage the poster via PM.
I donāt think, based on posting history though, that it will make a bit of difference.
I donāt think, based on posting history though, that it will make a bit of difference.
A
Arwing
Guest
As I understand it, if the first confirmation had been the one by the SSPX bishop it would still have been valid, but illicit. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/The second. You would not have had to be reconfirmed if the first one had been valid.
So regardless of which was first, the second āconfirmationā could not have been valid. In this scenario though it seems the SSPX āreconfirmationā was the second one.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.