Are SSPX Confirmations Valid?

i have an interesting question… since i heard that the marriage blessings in the society were not considered valid, or confession, what about baptism and confirmation? are they valid if one is confirmed there? another question, if confirmation and baptism are valid, then why isn’t confession valid? just curious especially after the last post i made about the SSPX and the NO. It lead me to wonder about confirmation and baptism.

A priest must have faculties from the local ordinary to hear confessions and to officiate at weddings. Faculties are not required for the other sacraments. The local ordinary might give faculties to them but the chances are slim to none and I’m not aware of this happening anywhere.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM
Confession

Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

Marriage

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Can. 1109 Unless the local ordinary and pastor have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office or declared such through a sentence or decree, by virtue of their office and within the confines of their territory they assist validly at the marriages not only of their subjects but also of those who are not their subjects provided that one of them is of the Latin rite.

Jimmy Akin has a piece on confirmations of the SSPX.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/02/schism_confirma.html

iam unsure whether he clearly states they are valid, because he adds alot of what ifs in there, and its too technical for me.
iam not familiar with canon law, as it is too specific for me, and to detailed. iam only looking for a simple answer.

My confirmation through the SSPX was ruled invalid. I had to make a Profession of Faith in order to receive the Sacraments.

I think I would tell someone to contact their arch and find out.

I think its a very very grey area and could possibly depend on WHO actually did it in the SSPX, not sure though so again, I would contact the Arch.

Its a very troublesome issue really. The confusion that is caused by this whole SSPX thing is really a headache to figure out.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info. It always seemed rather gray and as Marilena said, there are a lot of “ifs”.

One question. Did a priest or a bishop confirm you?

All their sacraments are valid - though all are also illicit. They are valid because they are performed by priests/Bishops with a valid apostolic succession, validly ordained using a valid form, assuming valid matter and all with a valid intent. They are all illicit - not allowed - because they do so without proper authorization and are in schism. ( I really don’t want a “schism” debate so if you disagree, just say so and let it drop, please).

If the Bishop was validly, even if illicitly, consecrated and he used the proper form and matter - it would have been valid. Their Bishops are to my knowledge all validly, but illicitly, consecrated using the old rite. As such they are certainly valid - much like the Orthodox.

BTW if the Church deemed it invalid - you did the right thing in following the Church decision, even if that decision was wrong or tainted.

how can the confirmations be considered valid if the archbishop ordained bishops without papal approval? please note, this is my post. there will be debates iam sure. but hopefully people will keep it to the post. can the confirmatiosn be considered valid if the bishops were not ordained by the pope? remember, all 4 including lefebvre were excommunicated, so how can an excommunicated bishop perform valid confirmations? doesn’t make sense.

how can the confirmations be considered valid if the archbishop ordained bishops without papal approval? please note, this is my post. there will be debates iam sure. but hopefully people will keep it to the post. can the confirmatiosn be considered valid if the bishops were not ordained by the pope? remember, all 4 including lefebvre were excommunicated, so how can an excommunicated bishop perform valid confirmations? doesn’t make sense.

Yes Baptism and Confirmation could most likely be valid with proper Form, Matter and Intent. Marriage requires that the minister be an officiaal witness of the Catholic Church which a SSPX priest would not be and confession (excepting danger of death) would need jurisdiction granted by a Catholic Bishop in union with Rome.

how could confirmation be considered valid if all 4 bishops are excommunicated?

They would all be valid - licitness is the issue. A natural marriage is valid with no witnersses whatsoever. Greek Orthodox confession is valid, but not licit.

Their personal state of grace or lack of same of the recipient or one who confects the sacrament is irrelevant to the validity of the sacrament.

It makes sense because it is God acting who confects the sacrament through the priest/Bishop. If you have proper form matter and intent - ex opere operato.

The reason is that the state of grace of the individual is never completely known. If it were otherwise, you could never be sure if the sacrament were confected. Interestingly, the position you seem to stake out is the psoition of the Orthodox Churches. So the question you raise is a good one. catholicism answers it in the way Augustine would; the Orthodox in the way Cyprian would. How much sin is too much? Is a formal decree of excommunication needed and enough? Etc., etc., etc.

I would simply show whoever has gotten or is considering getting a confirmation through the SSPX this thread and say they’re in for a whole mess of trouble and a huge headache and to avoid it or remedy it!

tell you what, iam going to talk to a priest i know and ask him.

Yeah but the Bishop has to be validly consecrated(? ordained?). For example, Archbishop Lefebvre himself could validly perform confirmations, the four bishops he ordained without papal authority, and any ordained by him or them thereafter, couldn’t.

Presumably there are other bishops who formed the SSPX alongside Lefebvre. They, already being bishops, could validly confirm. Any who were made bishops after the excommunications can’t.

Clear as mud for you there :smiley:

Papal approbation is not needed for validity of consecrating a Bishop (or any other sacrament) - it’s needed only for licitness.

Thus Greek Orthodox Bishops are validly Bishops, but not licitly so. Likewise the SSPX bishops.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.