Confirmation: Cause For Concern?

Confirmation: Cause For Concern?


One of our regular bloggers, Petrus, submitted the  article below for discussion, following the news that Confirmation will be administered at the SSPX chapel in Edinburgh in the near future.  

The fact that some adults (one that I know of personally) may ask  for conditional Confirmation provides food for thought. Why would they?   Petrus explains…

Is Confirmation the most underrated Sacrament in the modern Catholic Church?

The New Rite of Confirmation differs significantly from the Traditional Rite.

In many dioceses, the age for the reception of Confirmation has been lowered and the liturgy significantly stripped of ceremony. By lowering the age and lessening the ceremonies, the importance and value of Confirmation seems to have been lost on many Catholics. It is the only Sacrament of Initiation that the Society of St. Pius X routinely offer to confer conditionally.

What does the Church teach about Confirmation and why does the Society of St. Pius X have grave concerns concerning the new rite of Confirmation?

Holy Scripture tells us that Our Lord promised that He would send the Holy Ghost, a paraclete, or “helper”, to His disciples for the purpose of strengthening them in profession of Faith. Our Lord tells His disciples, “The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say” (Luke chapter 12 verses 11-12).

In John’s Gospel chapter 14 Our Lord says, “And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.” In the Acts of the Apostles, Philip the Deacon converted Samaria and baptised the converts. However, it was the Apostles, the first bishops of the Church, who went to administer Confirmation. It is clear that the imparting of the Holy Ghost was to be the normal part of the Christian life. Thus, we can say with confidence that Confirmation is a Sacrament of the Church, instituted by Our Lord, administered by the bishop and through which we receive the Holy Ghost. The Church teaches that Confirmation is the Sacrament by which we receive the Holy Ghost in order to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Christ. We receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the fruits associated with these gifts.

The ordinary minister of Confirmation is a bishop, as we can see from the Acts of the Apostles, detailed above. However, in danger of death any priest can administer the Sacrament in extremis. The bishop administers Confirmation by praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those being confirmed, while laying his hands on them and making the Sign of the Cross on their forehead with the oil of Chrism. The use of the oil of Chrism is extremely important. When the great flood documented in the book of Geneses subsided, the dove released by Noah returned with an olive branch, the symbol of peace and plenty. Therefore, the oil of Chrism has olive oil as its base. Olive oil has long been used as a symbol of strengthening. It is said that Roman soldiers were anointed with olive oil prior to going into battle. Olive oil strengthens our souls and prepares us for spiritual warfare. Added to this olive oil is balsam, sweet smelling fragrance. This balsam heals and preserves our souls.

The primary effect of Confirmation is an increase of the divine life of grace in the soul and a more intimate union with Christ, through reception of the Holy Ghost. The sacramental grace has a strengthening effect which we receive directly from the Holy Ghost, just like the Apostles received on Pentecost Sunday. This increases the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which we originally received at Baptism. The Holy Ghost makes us soldiers of Christ, able to defend and promote our Faith and overcome difficulties of the world, the flesh and the devil.

For the Church, Confirmation is the perpetuation of Pentecost. It is the means through which She keeps alive the power of the Holy Ghost. Why, then, has the importance of Confirmation been downgraded in the modern Church? It is interesting that St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) predicted that towards the end of time Confirmation would fall into disuse and that those who were not confirmed would succumb to believing in and obeying the Antichrist.

The Rite of Confirmation changed significantly in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X now routinely offer Conditional Confirmation to those who were Confirmed in the New Rite of Confirmation. Why is there doubts regarding the validity of the New Rite? To understand this, we must consider what ensures the validity of the Sacraments. A valid Sacrament consists of valid matter and correct form. This is because a Sacrament is an outward sign (of an inward grace) – an external action. The rite consists of the performing of an action and the saying of words. Thus in Confirmation, the laying on of hands and anointing on the forehead with Chrism is the valid matter and the words spoken by the bishop while those actions are being performed make up the form.  

It must be repeated that the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop and this can normally only be delegated to a priest in extraordinary circumstances, usually danger of death. Since the Second Vatican Council, parish priests routinely administer the Sacrament of Confirmation in many parishes. As I have stated above, valid matter in the case of Confirmation is the laying on of hands and the anointing with Chrism. In the Traditional Rite of Confirmation, the bishop lays his hands on each individual person being confirmed. In the modern Rite, the bishop, or more usually the priest, stands and extends his hands over all the Confirmandi. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the oil of Chrism has olive oil as its base ingredient since the use of other types of oil has been sanctioned by the Vatican. In the Traditional Rite, the correct form that ensures the validity of the Sacrament is, “I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” In 1971, these words were changed to “Be sealed with gift of the Holy Spirit.” This change in the correct form is quite dramatic. Coupled with the routine use of priests to administer the Sacrament and doubts regarding the use of olive oil based chrism, this is surely enough to establish doubts regarding the validity of the Sacrament of Confirmation in the new rite.

Confirmation can only be administered once. When a Society of St. Pius X bishop administers Conditional Confirmation, similar to when Conditional Baptism is administered, the words, If you are not Confirmed…” are added to the beginning of the correct form. It is important to stress that the Society of Saint Pius X makes no definitive judgement regarding the validity of the new rite. The existence of doubt should be enough for any Catholic who has been confirmed in the New Rite to seek Conditional Confirmation from a Traditional bishop and any Catholic who has still to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation should ensure they receive it in the Traditional Rite by a Traditional bishop.

Comments invited…

Comments (225)

  • Frankier


    I agree with everything you say.

    Why not, though, just let them all blether away and completely ignore them? They could all join a wee group within a group and we could sit back and eavesdrop.

    On the other hand, is there not a friendly NO group out there where they could all meet and pray?

    Sorry, that should have said play.

    February 17, 2015 at 1:03 pm
  • Athanasius


    I agree with you entirely. The points you make to Laguna2002 are absolutely on the ball. My challenge to this person is to scroll through the very many posts placed here recently by these trolls and demonstrate to us, with a list of dates and times of comments, where any of them have made what a rational and objective Catholic might call “well thought out” contributions that give “food for thought”. Let’s see now if Laguna2002 takes the challenge.

    In the meantime, I post this extremely good article for said trolls and their defenders. This is really “well thought out” (not to mention well researched) commentary that should give even the most ardent papolatrist “food for thought”.

    February 17, 2015 at 1:04 pm
  • Benedict Carter


    Looks like I need to ask the Society to conditonally Confirm me .. mine was in about 1972 with the ecumaniac-in-chief Alan Clarke of East Anglia. I’ll ask tonight at Holy Hour.

    February 17, 2015 at 2:16 pm
  • laguna2002


    Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply to my post; it was meant to be constructive and from your comments I think that you understood that. As you know I have ‘dipped in and out’ of this blog for some time and have, from time to time, made contributions which I hope have been helpful. In fact, my last interaction here was asking for help finding a publication that could assist with the pronunciation of Latin at Mass and I’m pleased to say that I have made progress in that regard. I have slowly managed to make headway, not just with the pronunciation but also attendance at the EF (as some call it) of the Mass. It is all very much ‘work in progress’ but I am getting there.

    I will not attempt to rise to the challenge that Athanasius sets; that is not my reason for being here, and others are more than able to look and judge for themselves. And nor will I attempt to be critical of your assessment, Editor, of ‘trolls’ – if you sincerely believe that disruption is their game then you are right to tackle it. Jobstears points out that CT has a lot to thank you for – and I acknowledged the progress made while being honest enough to admit the post I was submitting was done on the basis of dipping in and out.

    Having said that, I must say that Common Sense posts with what I would judge to be sincerity and conviction and I have not seen anything that would immediately have me shouting at my computer screen. I most certainly wouldn’t use the description of ‘troll’. Whilst you might not convince the contributor you may convince ten other readers. As I said before, simply deleting is, in my opinion, counter productive.

    Finally, it does no harm for bloggers to look inwards from time to time. No sooner had I appeared here than Frankier pounces and insinuating that CS and I are one and the same, without even a word about my post. That is shallow and insulting. Those of you who helped with my Latin request some time ago will, I hope, recognise me from then but I have no intention of justifying myself to every Tom, Dick and Frankier that comes along.

    February 17, 2015 at 6:59 pm
    • editor

      Laguna, I do, indeed, remember your previous (very good) contributions and I am delighted that you have pursued the Latin and seek a Traditional Latin Mass. There is nothing “extraordinary” about it, except that it refuses to be killed off!

      Now, I take on board your comments about Common Sense but I doubt if you have followed the blog closely throughout his time here because it became very obvious that he is a papolatrist – whatever the pope says or does is fine by him – and those of us who argue the Catholic attitude to pontiffs and the papacy are regarded by him as schismatic. The SSPX ditto.

      Despite giving him loads of sources to read to demonstrate that the Church has never advocated treating any pope as a cult leader, he took us round in circles repeating errors already corrected and at times was quite personal in his remarks.

      Imagine you are discussing the weather this week with someone who denies that it has been raining most of the time. They argue that it’s been sunny in Glasgow and that you are mistaken. You provide links to the weather reports for the week and another link to show the rise in sales of umbrellas in Glasgow compared to the rest of Scotland (!) Dopey returns to the blog to say he knows for a fact that it’s been sunny all week and gives no evidence, just repeats the error. Gets to be frustrating, Laguna, and while you might say “but that is an obvious and very simple example you provide” that is quite deliberate and designed to show that the errors to which CS clings about the Faith are basic errors and yet he refuses to accept the corrections, no doubt in the mistaken view of the papolatrist that to admit that a pope can err in any matter of Faith and Morals, is to undermine the indefectibility of the Church. They just don’t get it. And they won’t listen.

      Any Catholic who does not recognise the gravity of what is going on re. the Synod on the Family – and who in fact defends what is going on in the name of allowing free speech to seek “pastoral solutions” to the immorality which Cardinal Kasper seeks to legitimise – is not a Catholic who should be allowed out late at night without his mother.

      CS was given due warning of possible moderation – something that never happens on other blogs most of which are permanently moderated anyway, but try annoying Fr Z, for example, and you are simply blacklisted, no warning. I know, it happened to me for pointing out that he was being a tad contradictory by presenting his argument as “traditional” while at the same time defending the use of lay people to distribute Holy Communion. Athanasius, too, was blacklisted by him. So, we have been more than fair to CS, and even after moderation his posts have been allowed through. In fact, I had to post this notice after receiving queries by email:


      Someone asked me today why posts from Common Sense are still being published when he is in moderation and I said his posts would be routinely deleted. To clarify, when someone is in moderation, their posts are read in advance by me and if they are on topic and making a genuine point for discussion, they will be allowed through. Common Sense’s posts since moderation have been in that category. If he “goes circular” on us again, e.g. about the role of the pope, then his posts won’t get through. Simple. END.

      I hope this clarifies our position.

      God bless.

      PS Frankier has lots of Irish blood in his veins (as I do myself) which can make him hot-headed, but he’s one of the best, really, and would be the last person to mean to offend you. Honest!

      Frankier – behave! 😀

      February 17, 2015 at 7:46 pm
    • Athanasius


      I too remember you from previous visits and so I never considered you to be anything other than a genuine contributor. Your comments are extremely charitable and objective.

      As editor has pointed out, however, this has not been the method of CS and a few others who came onto the blog around the same time. These had one goal in common, which was to disrupt discussions with insulting remarks and arguments based on circular reasoning. At one point in time it was becoming almost intolerable, which I assume was the intention.

      Now, you say you won’t take me up on my challenge because others can read the comments of CS for themselves and make up their own minds. Ok, I’ll accept that response. This is the kind of exchange all Catholics who are of genuine intent should have.

      When CS and his pals entered the scene making the most outrageous claims and accusations they were provided with irrefutable evidence from the Magisterium, etc., for their correction. In certain cases they were asked to provide contrary evidence that bore any kind of ecclesiastic weight to prove their claims. All they did was ignore everything and carry on regardless with the same, and new false claims. How on earth can rational human beings be expected to continue in debate with such people? It’s not possible.

      I hope this helps to shed a little more light on the situation.

      By the way, I’m pleased to hear that your Latin is coming along.

      February 17, 2015 at 8:48 pm
    • Frankier


      I have just read your post but I was only joking. It is obvious that you are not one and the same. So, SORRY!

      I can`t speak for Tom or Dick though.

      February 18, 2015 at 11:46 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        “I can’t speak for Tom or Dick though”


        February 18, 2015 at 11:59 pm
  • gabriel syme

    I have come to this thread late, and I have not managed to digest all of the comments (so, sorry if this question has been asked already):

    I understand that, with some sacraments (notably confession) that if something is awry which might make the sacrament invalid – but its not the fault of the lay person involved – then the Church “makes good” the sacrament so that the lay person doesn’t lose out due to the incompetence or invention of the priest. (is this right?)

    Why then does this not seem to be the case with confirmations, if the SSPX is moved to offer conditional confirmation?

    My own confirmation was carried out by Bishop Joseph Devine, then Bishop of Motherwell, in St Augustines Church, Coatbridge. I cant remember exactly which year it was, but definitely the 1980s.

    As per the rest of my so-called “formation”, I feel in retrospect that my peers and I went through confirmation in a rather glib and blase fashion. (From what I remember, the preparation at school was more about what time to arrive, where to sit etc, than it was ‘what does this event mean’.)

    Shamefully, I cannot even remember what my confirmation name is, which I think is a good indicator as to how seriously the event was taken by all involved. I remember it was between Michael or Andrew, but I cannot remember which I settled on.

    I recall in the run up to the occasion, that mischief-makers would tell you that the Bishop “slaps” you to confirm you. In the event he simply touched the side of your head / cheek with the palm of his hand.

    My main memory of the event is walking up the aisle with my sponsor, who had his hand on my shoulder. When we got to the sanctuary, the Bishop was seated there, facing the candidates as they arrived. He touched the side of our heads in turn, and I am pretty sure he anointed us too.

    I remember having my photo taken with Bishop Devine outside the Church afterwards.

    So, looking back, it seems that everything was in place as regards how the sacrament was administered, even if I was not very well instructed as to what all this actually meant. However, can my lack of concrete instruction and / or poor recollection of the event affect its validity?

    Any thoughts / comments welcome!

    February 17, 2015 at 8:59 pm
    • Petrus


      Your question about “ecclesia supplet” and validity with regarding to Confirmation is a good one.  I don’t think this principle applies to all the Sacraments.   For example, if the priest doesn’t use the correct matter or form in Holy Communion transubstantiation doesn’t take place.  I don’t think “ecclesia supplet” would allow a lay person to receive Holy Communion under these circumstances. 

      As far as I am aware, this principle only applies to Confession.  The lay person supplies the valid matter, the confessed sins, so if the priest doesn’t use the correct form, provided the lay person doesnt know that the form used isn’t correct, the Church supplies.  However, if the lay person does know something is awry, this principle doesn’t apply. 

      Remember, “Ecclesia Supplet” applies when a priest deviates.  The entire New Rite of Confirmation has sufficient doubt, even on paper.

      I would recommend you receive Conditional Confirmation because the valid matter is olive oil.  Given the amount of innovation in the New Rite, I would say there’s enough doubt to merit a Conditional Confirmation. There’s also no way you could ever know if olive oil was used.

      Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

      February 17, 2015 at 9:25 pm
      • Athanasius


        Your comments put it so much more concisely than my long-winded explanation. Thank you.

        February 17, 2015 at 10:11 pm
      • Santiago

        “For example, if the priest doesn’t use the correct matter or form in Holy Communion transubstantiation doesn’t take place”.

        What happens then, if a Priest does use the correct matter or form in Holy Communion but the Priest himself is in a state of sin? Does transubstantiation take place? For example, I am thinking of the many Masses offered by Cardinal O’Brien.

        February 17, 2015 at 11:25 pm
      • Petrus

        I don’t think the sins of the minister has any impact on the validity of the Sacraments. 

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 17, 2015 at 11:30 pm
      • Santiago

        I find that very difficult to accept. If a Priest doesn’t use the correct matter or form in Holy Communion transubstantiation doesn’t take place, but a Priest can be in a state of sin and yet transubstantiation takes place just because he uses the correct matter or form? What an insult to Out Lord.

        February 17, 2015 at 11:45 pm
      • Athanasius


        You confuse the priest with the man. A priest celebrating Mass acts in the Person of Christ by reason of his ordination. This means that despite personal mortal sin he is still endowed with the power to consecrate. The priest doesn’t lose his priestly power by reason of mortal sin.

        You’re right about one thing though, it is a great insult to Our Lord for a priest to offer Holy Mass while in a state of unrepented mortal sin. It’s not something any of us can contemplate.

        February 18, 2015 at 12:47 am
      • Santiago


        You are right, of course, and upon reflection, I realise that.

        I guess with all the scandal we have endured I’m just a disillusioned Catholic. I’ll try to give up being disillusioned for Lent!!

        February 18, 2015 at 2:40 pm
      • Athanasius


        Never allow yourself to become disillusioned. Our Lord is still in Charge of His Church and He will end this crisis when the time is right.

        In the meantime, get apostolic, not disillusioned. Our Lord is testing the faithful through this crisis. Hang on in there, keep to the ancient faith and all will be well – eventually!

        February 18, 2015 at 4:56 pm
      • gabriel syme

        Many thanks for your advice Petrus!

        February 18, 2015 at 1:07 pm
      • Common Sense

        Olive Oil is always used!!!!!!

        February 18, 2015 at 7:48 pm
      • Petrus

        Wrong again.  A simple Google search will tell you otherwise.

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm
      • Common Sense

        The norm is Olive Oil, but subject to local conditions another oil may be used. As I have previously said, in a different context, the norms, of necessity, permit some exceptions.

        February 19, 2015 at 6:21 am
      • Petrus

        Could you provide a source to support this?

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 19, 2015 at 11:09 am
      • Athanasius


        And you’ll find, as with all these indult back doors, that the exception has become the rule!

        February 19, 2015 at 3:31 pm
      • Common Sense

        Comment deleted.

        February 19, 2015 at 5:00 pm
    • Athanasius

      Gabriel Syme,

      Others may be better informed about Bishop Devine than I, but from the little I know of him I would suspect that his confirmations were likely to be valid. Let me add to this the positive note that at least Bishop Devine discharged his duty as a bishop by administering confirmations personally. He didn’t punt the task off to a local priest, as some of his confreres have done.

      The difficulty in your case, as in so many others, is that even if the bishop did administer the Sacrament himself, and even if we think he may have used the correct matter and form, we can never be absolutely certain of the fact. Post-1972 leaves a lot of doubt in the minds of many of the faithful and that’s why they take advantage of conditional Confirmation. Let’s put it this way: it wouldn’t do you any harm to make certain through conditional Confirmation.

      This brings me to your question about possibly dodgy absolution from a priest in Confession, and what to do about it.

      The first thing to note is that when a person commits a mortal sin but then repents of it in his heart before God with genuine sorrow, he is already forgiven. However, a condition of this forgiveness is that the person go to Confession at the first possible opportunity and confess the sin before a priest in order to receive Sacramental absolution and a penance. Access to Holy Communion is barred until this condition is fulfilled. If the person fails to go to Confession at the earliest opportunity, then it may be said that his sorrow was not genuine and his sin remains.

      This being the teaching of the Church, it seems fair to conclude that if a penitent does all that God requires of him, yet is failed by a priest who does not use the correct matter and form for a valid Sacramental absolution, then yes, that person is forgiven and is free to receive Holy Communion. In other words, the Church supplies for the failure of the priest.

      However, willful ignorance on the part of a lay person as to the words a priest must use to absolve validly changes everything. If, for example, a penitent knows that the priest has not said the words correctly, yet says nothing about it, he need not think he has been absolved on the grounds that the Church supplies. No, the Church only supplies in the case of genuine ignorance on the part of the penitent, i.e., invincible ignorance.

      Confirmation is different. Like Transubstantiation, if there is deficiency in regard to matter, form and/or intention then the Sacrament is not confected, simple as that.

      Let me try to explain with an example. We know that it is impossible for Anglican bishops to impart valid Confirmation or for Anglican clergy to confect the Blessed Sacrament, even if proper matter, form and intention are present. The reason for this is that they are not ordained bishops and priests of the Church, the apostolic succession having been broken at the time of the Reformation. Hence, even with the best will in the world, it is impossible for Anglican clergy to bring about supernatural realities reserved to the ordained.

      The same may be said of Anglican Confessions, but with one very crucial difference.

      God being merciful, if an Anglican in invincible ignorance truly repents in his heart of having offended God by mortal sin, then his sin is forgiven by God despite the invalidity of Anglican confessions. This is what is meant by souls being saved in their false religions but not by their false religions.

      Mortal sin is so deadly to the soul that God in His mercy holds out to the invincibly ignorant the possibility, albeit remote, of salvation; if only they are faithful to His law, written in the hearts of all men. Quite how many can go through a long life without the grace of the Sacraments and keep this law has to be weighed in small numbers.

      I know I’ve gone on a bit here, but I hope this attempted explanation makes sense to you.

      February 17, 2015 at 10:07 pm
      • gabriel syme

        Thanks Athanasius, very helpful!

        February 18, 2015 at 1:08 pm
  • Benedict Carter

    i had an interesting short talk with an SSPX priest today on this subject. The Society’s worries about this Sacrament in its Vatican II-ised clothes is not so much the form (the new wording, though a radical departure from Western practice, is traditional in the Eastern Catholic Churches) but the matter – the absence of olive oil from the chrism.

    February 18, 2015 at 7:10 pm
    • Petrus

      That’s true. The use of olive oil is the main issue.  However, it goes back to the old argument, “Is validity enough?”  Absolutely not!

      When you combine the olive oil issue, the mixing of Eastern and Western rites, the regular use of priests instead of bishops, one can only conclude that the New Rite of Confirmation is AT BEST illicit and possibly invalid. It’s enough to have any right thinking Catholic avoiding it like the plague.

      Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

      February 18, 2015 at 7:59 pm
      • bencjcarter

        Petrus, frankly that’s nonsense. How can a Sacramental form promulgated by the Holy See be “illicit”.

        February 18, 2015 at 10:01 pm
      • Petrus

        Precisely for the reasons I’ve given in the article and again in my post. 

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 19, 2015 at 6:01 am
      • Common Sense

        A Sacramental Form promulgated by The Church cannot be illicit.

        February 22, 2015 at 3:08 pm
      • Athanasius


        A Sacramental Form promulgated personally by a Pope to the detriment of a clearer previous Form promulgated by the Magisterium can most certainly be illicit. The New Mass is the example par excellence. of such Pontifical abuse of authority.

        February 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm
      • Common Sense

        I am not at all convinced of your analysis. You have an axe to grind, and grind it you will.

        However, the Rites of East and West are licit, and valid, and essentially from The One Tradition, and the differences are perhaps an early form of inculteration, and both Traditions can, and must, learn from each other, as they have as their root Tradition itself?

        February 23, 2015 at 10:00 am
      • Petrus

        What about the quotes from eminent scholars, including a future Pope? 

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 23, 2015 at 5:14 pm
      • Common Sense

        You can argue, on one hand, that people who quote present, past, or future Popes are guilty of Papalatory (?), and even point out one such man was once suspected of heresy, and then cite such people to sustain your poor scholarship and judgement.

        By the way, you worry about mixing East and Western Rites, and presumably theology, but just who was the original Athanasius lauded, possibly indirectly, by some here? A Coptic Christian.

        Consistency, please!

        February 23, 2015 at 6:01 pm
      • Petrus

        You’ve actually touched on something quite important, CS.  The reason we can say that Joseph Ratzinger was suspected of heresy and then use the same man to defend Catholic orthodoxy, is because Ratzinger was, and is, a Modernist. 

        I suggest you read “Pascendi ” by Pope St Pius X.  It explains clearly that a Modernist will defend Catholic Tradition beautifully on one page, only to contradict it on the next. 

        Now, I note your comment about my “poor scholarship”.  A few points to note.  It doesn’t take a scholar to understand the Truths of the Faith.  I have noticed that your recent posts have been well meaning and free from personal attacks.  Please keep them that way in accordance with the house rules.  

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 23, 2015 at 8:14 pm
      • Common Sense

        You are wrong to suggest have ever engaged in personal attacks. However, when people here speak of others, like me, needing “the men in white coats” etc, then we can see the boot is on the other foot.

        Editor: come on, now, CS, I’m sure it was I who referred to the men in white coats but you should know me well enough by now to know that I was not being serious (well… not really!)

        Further, as you question not only my knowledge, but my faith, it is not unreasonable to question your scholarship especially when things you cite as facts are not so. Can you, for example, one Diocese in The British Isles that does not use Olive Oil for The Sacred Oils? I doubt it, and that is the basis of one of your many erroneous claims.

        Editor: CS, may I suggest that you simply ask for sources without asking for people’s academic or theological qualifications. The great saints had no academic Degrees – it can be a hindrance to the spiritual life to have academic qualifications. I’m sure it was Pope Saint Pius X who said as much in one of his encyclicals, that it is the educated Catholics who often have most difficulty accepting the simple truths of our Faith (I’m paraphrasing but you’ll get my drift – and no time to check source right now, but will do in due course if you don’t believe me.)

        February 24, 2015 at 8:29 am
      • Common Sense


        As you, and many of your regulars, write as if you are experts, and some of you even republish your own articles here, then your qualifications do matter.

        I claim no authority, but to remind people of the current expression, of The One Truth Faith, promulgated by The Pope, and College of Bishops, and the wider magisterium, and that teaching is available in current editions of Liturgical Books, Canon Law, The Catechism of The Catholic Church, recent encyclicals etc.

        Handbooks, and newletters, published by various organisations, favoured by some here, or apparitions, and interpretations of past documents, not upheld by The Magisterium, do not count as knowledge or expertise.

        February 28, 2015 at 6:31 am
      • Petrus

        I’m afraid you’ve learned nothing, Common Sense.  

        Sent from my Samsung device

        February 28, 2015 at 7:16 am
      • Petrus

        I refer to your trolling on the lead thread, Common Sense.   “Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circumstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture.” Sacram Unctione Infirmorum Now, we all know that you will claim that the Church has only allowed this in extreme circumstances, but I say to you that the same thing happened with Extraordinary Ministers.  They should only be used in extreme circumstances but they have become commonplace.   Therefore, I ask you this: how can we be certain that olive oil is being used.  I know priests don’t usually question this and neither do the faithful.  So, let’s take the Archdiocese of Glasgow.  Where does the oil come from and how do we know that it’s olive oil?

        March 1, 2015 at 2:47 pm
      • Common Sense


        So you argument is that you do not have any evidence that Olive Oil isn’t used, but because, in your view, we have too many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion it must be true that it isn’t used.

        On that basis you counsel people to ignore that they were Sacramentalised according the Valid, and Licit, Rites of Holy Mother Church, and seek conditional sacraments from a Bishop who was not licitly appointed?

        If that is being faithful to Tradition, and Scholarly, I pray that God will bring you, and those who see you as an expert, to their senses.

        You undermine, and devalue, The Holy Sacraments, and mock, and debase, valid, and licit, celebrations of The Holy Sacraments in order to set yourself up as the Guardian of the Church?

        How sad is the spectacle, and is your attack on the Church.

        March 1, 2015 at 3:08 pm
      • Petrus

        Common Sense Now that you have thay illogical rant off your chest, go back and read this whole thread again.  The argument is very simple.  Since Paul VI broke with Tradition and allowed the use of oil that wasn’t based on olives, we cannot be certain of the origin of the oil used in our Confirmations.  Therefore, we cannot be certain of the validity. It really is quite simple and doesn’t require any academic qualifications to grasp.   Your own position is ambiguous, no doubt that’s quite deliberate.  Should olive oil be used? Is it used in our Dioceses? How can we be certain olive oil is used? If it isn’t olive oil, how can we be certain that the use of non-olive oil is justified? You see, there’s a minefield.   You carry on in the wishy washy world of Modernism, No Common Sense.  I prefer to know that the Sacraments I receive are absolutely valid. 

        Sent from my Samsung device

        March 1, 2015 at 3:21 pm
      • editor

        Please STOP saying that any of us here present ourselves as “experts”. Nobody does that. Nobody needs to be an expert to know that Rome has allowed for other oils to be used instead of olive oil. If that’s a fact, then that’s a fact and any numpty should be able to grasp it. Nor is anybody debasing or mocking anything – except you. You are the one doing exactly that and making me deeply regret my decision to remove you from moderation. I used to have no time for Fr Z due to his ready blacklisting of people who disagreed with him, but I’m beginning to think he has a point. Take the hint.

        March 1, 2015 at 4:29 pm
      • Common Sense


        I am being entirely logical.

        Even in the most recent Liturgical Books it stresses Olive Oil is the norm.

        You cannot provide evidence of even one Diocese that doesn’t use Olive Oil.

        Rome says priests can validly, and licitly, Confirm, although it does say a Bishop is the Ordinary Minister.

        So, in spite of the fact priests can confirm, and you have no evidence that Olive Oli is not used, you patronisingly, and wrongly counsel, that people seek Confirmation from people who are not licitly ordained as Bishops, and whose validity has never been tested. How odd.

        Thankfully I am on the side of Tradition, and Sacraments, licitly, and validly, celebrated in Full Communion with Rome.

        March 1, 2015 at 3:33 pm
      • Petrus

        Common Sense Hasn’t Rome said non-olive oil can be used? Yet the liturgical books stress the use of olive oil!  Gosh, no wonder you and your Modernist friends are confused! Can you tell us for a fact that the Archdiocese of Glasgow uses olive oil? Which part of the Modern “Magisterium” does the Archdiocese follow? Pope Paul VI or the “Liturgical books”? By the way, you seem to know an awful lot about the “liturgical books”.  Interesting.  

        Sent from my Samsung device

        March 1, 2015 at 3:42 pm
      • Common Sense

        I don’t know what happens in Glasgow, but I assume as Olive Oil is readily available, and is the norm, that is probably what is used.

        Anyone vaguely interested in Liturgy can read the books!

        However, I would suggest anyone published as a “guest”, and posing as an “expert” should check their facts.

        Likewise, any Traditional Catholic would know a Bishop needs a mandate from Rome before Ordination. If they have not their ordination may be invalid, and definitely, illicit, and therefore any sacraments they celebrate, that are reserved for a Bishop, would be illicit, and possibly invalid.

        Therefore, it follows, no Catholic, in Communion, with Rome would encourage others to approach them for Sacraments, especially if they have previously, validly, and licitly, celebrated a Sacrament that cannot be repeated.

        March 1, 2015 at 4:06 pm
      • Petrus

        Now we get to the real reason behind Common Sense ‘ s trolling.  A hatred of the SSPX.  All is rosy in the garden according to the likes of Common Sense.  I think delusional is the word. As for the rest of your diatribe,  too many errors that have been corrected time and time again.  However,  it’s good that you have now shown your true colours.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        March 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm
      • editor


        “I don’t know what happens in Glasgow…”

        And neither do the Glasgow clergy. I’ve asked and been told that “someone” donates the oils so the clergy presume all is as it should be. Educated? Qualified? Experts? Eh?

        March 1, 2015 at 4:25 pm
      • Common Sense


        You advocate that the majority of Catholic have invalidly,and illicitly, received Sacraments not in accord with Universal Norms, but provide no evidence at all to support your claim, and then advocate Conditional reception of Sacraments, that cannot be repeated from a “Bishop” who may not be a Bishop.

        The question of which Bishop is a Bishop is a sideshow when compared to your own flawed argument, which lacks truth and substance.

        March 1, 2015 at 4:24 pm
      • Petrus

        Common Sense I make absolutely no judgement on the validity of the new rite of Confirmation.  That’s a red herring, deliberately used to try to deflect the real issues.  As for your nasty comments about which bishop is a bishop, along with your use of inverted commas around bishop, it says far more about your ignorance than anything else.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        March 1, 2015 at 4:29 pm
      • Common Sense


        You and I frequently see the world differently, but I hope, in Charity, disagree.

        However, the fact that some individual, or group, or company, donates The Oil for The Sacred Oils cannot logically lead anyone to conclude they haven’t donated Olive Oil.

        It is like saying that if someone, who is not a priest or Bishop, donates a crucifix then, just possibly, ir might not be a crucifix at all.

        How do we know it is Olive Oli? Because it comes in bottles, or containers, labelled Olive Oli!!!!,

        March 1, 2015 at 4:30 pm
      • Common Sense


        In the article above, Petrus seeks to answer the question “Why is there doubts regarding the validity of the New Rite?” and then advocates conditional confirmation, Arguing, “the existence of doubt should be enough for any Catholic who has been confirmed in the New Rite to seek Conditional Confirmation from a Traditional bishop and any Catholic who has still to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation should ensure they receive it in the Traditional Rite by a Traditional bishop.”. It is disingenuous to the argue he is not claiming to answer the question, or then throwing open needless doubts about the New Rite. In a later comment he writes ” Suffice to say there’s doubts. Conditional Confirmation is administered because of these doubts.”

        To back track, and claim to be a non expert, when challenged, and fail to provide a single strand of evidence, is surely not the hallmark of an article published under the banner of “Truth”?

        March 1, 2015 at 4:40 pm
      • editor


        Listen. You really do not pay attention – either that or you’re one of two things: deliberately twisting what is written here or downright thick. And before you complain about me making personal remarks blah blah – I’m allowed. Get over it.

        Now pay close attention because FOR THE LAST TIME I am going to explain to you as clearly as I can what it is that Petrus is saying:

        1) there MAY be some doubt as to the use of olive oil in Confirmations.

        2) because of this doubt, it is permissible to have conditional Confirmation. That is not an insult. Anglican vicars have had conditional ordinations and there is a priest in the so called Catholic press who bent over backwards last weekend to demonstrate that this is not an insult. They MAY (he said) be validly ordained but in case not… Ditto Confirmations.

        3) Nobody is back tracking about any of the above. I was Confirmed prior to Vatican II. Had I been Confirmed afterwards, I WOULD seek conditional Confirmation.

        That’s all I have time for right now but I suggest that you leave this question of olive oil be for now. It has been a concern for some people, not every Catholic, but, as I’ve pointed out, the Glasgow clergy (like yourself) are taking it for granted that they are being given olive oil, they couldn’t swear in a court of law that this is the case, and thus – in the present crisis climate – it is understandable that some Catholics, those who know the centrality of using the correct form and matter in the Sacraments, wish to ensure the grace of the Sacrament by seeking conditional Confirmation.

        No need to bang on about it. If you think the above is nonsense, saying nothing and move on.

        March 1, 2015 at 5:09 pm
      • Common Sense

        I think you comments on Joseph Ratzinger count as a personal attack, and, unlike you, he is a Priest and Bishop, a renowned scholar, and was The Head of The C.D.F, and elected Pope.

        February 24, 2015 at 8:41 am
      • Petrus

        There is no personal attack.  I like Cardinal Ratzinger very much and have attended a Mass he celebrated.  He is of Modernist thought.  If you understood Modernism you would agree.  However, you are a Modernist yourself so there are none so blind!

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 24, 2015 at 5:40 pm
      • Common Sense


        It is not a Red Herring: to say some words are essential to the celebration of A Sacrament, but the whole Rite is the norm means that an individual priest cannot act on an ad hoc basis even in extremis.

        February 25, 2015 at 4:57 pm
      • Petrus

        I sense you are not understanding the issues, therefore let me ask you a few questions (a good educator asks key questions to help others understand).

        When has the Church, in recent times, ever mixed the Eastern and Western rites?

        What was missing from the Traditional Latin Rite of Confirmation? 

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 23, 2015 at 5:17 pm
      • Common Sense

        Wiser minds than you have discussed and debated, and finalised, the matter, and they did so in conjunction with The Magisterium, and not as a wrecker from the sidelines.

        Are you saying that Christ prayer we all be one does not apply to those of East and West, and if what one part of that divide does something deemed overall to have substance, and be based on Tradition, why would the other not benefit from that wisdom, and experience.

        You have a strange understanding of Tradition, and what Unity under Christ means. One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism, and One True Church comes to mind. Mixing Rites doesn’t make things wrong, but make a wrong Rite, Right.

        February 23, 2015 at 6:07 pm
      • Petrus


        I note that you fail to answer my questions.  That’s very revealing.

        Now, you are showing your ignorance, or your disdain for the authority of the Church, by claiming it is permissible to mix rites. Which is it?

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 23, 2015 at 7:55 pm
      • Common Sense

        An individual cannot mix Rites, but over the time, The Church can, and does, adapt her Rites which may take into account practice, based on Tradition, based on another Rite. It has happened since the beginning, and it will continue for ever.

        What makes a Rite right, is whether a Rite has the rightful approval of the lawful authority.

        I am still waiting for you, or someone else, to tell me which edition of The Roman Missal has a Eucharistic Prayer which consists solely of The Words of Institution, and is lawful in extreme circumstances? Which Edition, and promulgated by which Pope?

        February 24, 2015 at 8:34 am
      • Petrus

        I don’t understand your request,  CS.  You know fine well that no missal has such a Canon.  That’s besides the point and we’ll you know it.

        The point was, only the Words of Consecration are required for validity. Why you are still chipping away at this is beyond me!

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 24, 2015 at 5:39 pm
      • Common Sense


        You cannot argue The Supreme Pontiff cannot change a Rite, but that an individual priest, a Cardinal or not, can do so, no matter how extreme the circumstances.

        How can you deny the right of The Church to say ordinarily Olive Oil, but in in specific circumstances any natural plant oil, can be used for The Sacred Oils, but an individual priest can change The Rite of Mass?

        February 24, 2015 at 6:17 pm
      • Petrus

        Goodness  is it really so difficult to understand? No priest has the authority to change anything in the liturgy.  I would be interested to know if you are so quick to challenge the numerous priests in this country who do this on a regular basis! 1.  The words of Consecration are the essential form that guarantees validity  2. Only in extreme circumstances are these words used on their own.  For example, when bishops in Communist countries were arrested, they used the words of Consecration only in order to receive Our Lord.  Think, think, think!

        Sent from my Samsung device

        February 25, 2015 at 12:30 pm
      • Common Sense

        Tell me does The Church teach that 1. The essentials for baptism are the use of Water, and The Trinitarian Formula, and that, in an emergency, any one can baptise?

        Has it not also taught, and required, if an emergency Baptism is performed then, ordinarily, the other ceremonies, of baptism, should be carried out by a proper/lawful Minister as soon as possible. (Or are you going to argue against a practice that has been upheld for centuries?)

        Apply the same logic, and thinking, to The Mass and your idea that The Words of Institution, alone, are necessary.

        February 25, 2015 at 6:14 am
      • Petrus

        Again, another red herring and false dichotomy.  It’s not my idea, CS, it’s fact.  I’m not saying that it should be standard practice, but, in extremis, the words of Consecration are all that is required to ensure validity. 

        Sent from my Samsung device

        February 25, 2015 at 12:00 pm
      • Athanasius


        You seem to be of the mistaken belief, common to these confusing times, that the schismatic and/or Protestant religions around the globe are representative of a Church divided, a Church which has failed to keep unity in accordance with the prayer of Our Lord. This is a very, very great error!

        here is the truth as expressed in Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos:

        “…These pan-Christians who strive for the union of the churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians. But how should charity tend to the detriment of faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems in his Gospel to have revealed the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and who never ceased to impress upon the memory of his disciples the new commandment “to love one another,” nevertheless strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you.” (2 John 1:10).

        Therefore, since the foundation of charity is faith pure and inviolate, it is chiefly by the bond of one faith that the disciples of Christ are to be united. A federation of Christians, then, is inconceivable in which each member retains his own opinions and private judgment in matters of faith, even though they differ from the opinions of all the rest. How can men with opposite convictions belong to one and the same federation of the faithful: those who accept sacred Tradition as a source of revelation and those who reject it; those who recognise as divinely constituted the hierarchy of bishops, priests and ministers in the Church, and those who regard it as gradually introduced to suit the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that wonderful conversion of the bread and wine, Transubstantiation, and those who assert that the body of Christ is there only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognise both Sacrament and Sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial of the Lord’s Supper; those who think it right and useful to pray to the Saints reigning with Christ, especially to Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who refuse such veneration as derogatory to the honour due Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men.” (1 Tim. 2:5).

        How so great a variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church, We know not. That unity can arise from only one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But we do know that from such a state of affairs it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or “indifference,” and to the error of the modernists, who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, that it changes according to the varying necessities of time and place and the varying tendencies of the mind; that it is not contained in an immutable tradition, but can be altered to suit the needs of human life…

        …Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it; for from that one true Church they have in the past fallen away. The one Church of Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. The Mystical Spouse of Christ has never in the course of the centuries been contaminated, nor in the future can she ever be, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot become false to her Spouse; she in inviolate and pure. She knows but one dwelling, and chastely and modestly she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber.” The same holy martyr marvelled that anyone could believe that “this unity is built upon a divine foundation, knit together by heavenly Sacraments, could ever be rent asunder by the conflict of wills.” For since the Mystical Body of Christ, like His physical body, is one (1 Cor. 12:12), compacted and fitly joined together (Eph. 4:16), it were foolish to say that the Mystical Body is composed of disjointed and scattered members. Whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member thereof, neither is he in communion with Christ its head…

        …Let Our separated children, therefore, draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, Princes of the Apostles, consecrated with their blood; to the See which is “the root and womb whence issues the Church of God”, and let them come, not with any intention or hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but to submit themselves to its teaching and government…”

        February 23, 2015 at 10:25 pm
      • Athanasius


        I thought I might also add the quotation below from Mirari Vos, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI. It seems most appropriate that these words be applied to what we are discussing, which is the Modernist tampering with the Forms of the Sacraments.

        Here’s what the Pope wrote to the Bishops:

        “…Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies. Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty” and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “Nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning…”

        February 23, 2015 at 10:36 pm
      • Common Sense

        Rites have changed throughout the ages, and if they are based on what “has been handed on”, from both East and West than adaptations will take place over time.

        To repeat a quote from Rorate Caeil of this week: “It is interesting to note that Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church, to which he belonged, was not formally in communion with Rome and Constantinople. However, as those interested in the extremely tangled history of Christianity in the first millennium are well aware, one cannot always speak straightforwardly of “schism” and “heresy” when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom in that era.”

        As I have also noted elsewhere Summorum Pontificum, and the accompanying letter, are clear: the is one Mass and both forms are part of the one Tradition.

        The SSPX have not been fully reconciled to The Church because they will not accept the truths, and Conciliar Teaching, you seek to deny. I know which of us would be deemed to be attentive to authentic Teaching, and in Full Communion with Rome.

        February 24, 2015 at 11:14 am
      • Athanasius


        Rites may have changed (organically speaking), but they have never before been butchered, which is what the changes of today represent.

        As regards Communion with Rome. You should know that Rome itself in the person of the Pope must first maintain full communion with the eternal Rome of his predecessors, which is where our communion lies.

        Think on this. The SSPX has changed nothing of the ancient faith handed down for nearly 2000 years. How, then, can the SSPX be accused of not being in full communion with Rome?

        Are you speaking of eternal Rome or of Modernist Conciliar Rome with its destructive innovations and its doctrinal/theological/liturgical obscurations of all that was once so beautifully clear, loved and upheld in our most holy religion?

        February 24, 2015 at 8:18 pm
      • Athanasius


        Petrus is not grinding axes, he’s stating facts!

        It was always forbidden by the Magisterium of the Church for Eastern and Western rites to be mixed in any way, particularly those of Eastern schismatics. This modernist notion of mixing and learning from each other, as you put it, is sheer heresy.

        February 23, 2015 at 5:26 pm
      • Common Sense

        Only this week on Rorate Caeli, in speaking of a new Doctor of The Church, not from an ecclesial formally in Communion with Rome:

        “It is interesting to note that Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church, to which he belonged, was not formally in communion with Rome and Constantinople. However, as those interested in the extremely tangled history of Christianity in the first millennium are well aware, one cannot always speak straightforwardly of “schism” and “heresy” when dealing with the theological and ecclesiastical divisions of Christendom in that era.”

        Tut, tut!

        February 24, 2015 at 11:08 am
  • Athanasius


    Is it possible you’re confusing “illicit” with “invalid”?

    No Pope or bishop has the authority from God to alter either the liturgy or the form of the Sacraments in such a way as to make them less explicit in their intention and therefore open to abuse and possible invalidity.

    This has happened with both the Mass and the Sacrament of Confirmation, and so it is absolutely true to state that both the New Mass and the new form of the Sacrament in question are illicit.

    Validity is a separate issue that must be weighed case by case, as we are doing here in respect to Confirmation and its requirements. Even so, it is not always clear if a particular new rite Confirmation was or was not invalid. Hence, to be on the safe side conditional Confirmation should be sought. It’s one of those terrible dilemmas the faithful face today in respect to changed forms which have completely obscured that which was once so perfectly and explicitly Catholic.

    February 18, 2015 at 11:28 pm
    • Common Sense

      Unless I have misunderstood God doesn’t need The Sacraments to do his work. We human beings have a need for them.

      The notion that The Church cannot alter the Rite, Form or language used is nonsense.

      The Church is clear Olive Oil is the norm, but, specific local conditions, may require another oil, from a plant, is used. In most Countries Olive Oil is used, and will continue to be used.

      It is also strange to argue that a priest who in extreme circumstances uses only The Words of Institution, although no Ritual Book would give that abbreviated form is ok, but The Church itself cannot alter a Rite/Ritual is an obvious contradiction too.

      February 21, 2015 at 5:48 pm
      • Petrus

        “The notion that The Church cannot alter the Rite, Form or language used is nonsense.”

        For a start, no one said the Church didn’t have the authority to alter.  This has happened through the years and the vast majority of the time it has been additions.

        What the Church have never done is cook up completely new rites.  It’s equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 21, 2015 at 7:24 pm
      • Common Sense

        But the Church has never come up with a completely New Rite. It has changed and adapted existing Rites.

        February 22, 2015 at 6:23 am
      • Petrus

        Really?  The new rite of Confirmation is completely different from the Traditional Rite.  It even borrows parts of eastern rites!  If that’s not a completely “new rite” then I don’t know want is.

        Now let’s take your assertion and apply it to the Mass.  Fr. Joseph Gélineau S.J., a Council peritus and liberal apologist for the new liturgy, states in his book “Demain la Liturgie” (1976 MD p.77-8): “To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of theMass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed… [the former edifice]… appears to-day either as a ruin, or the partial substructure of a different building.”

        Cardinal Ratzinger, in his autobiography “My Life” writes: “The old building was taken down and another was built.”

        Mgr. Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman liturgy” states: “This is not a development of living liturgy, but substitutes this with a fabrication following the pattern of technical production: the ready-made product of the moment.” Mgr. Gamber writes (op. cit.): “instead of a fruitful renovation of the liturgy, the destruction of liturgical forms that had grown up organically over a period of many centuries.”

        Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

        February 23, 2015 at 8:12 am
      • Common Sense

        They are individuals who were then expressing a personal opinion.

        Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum, states clearly there is only one Mass, and that The Ordinary Form, and Extraordinary Form, are part of the one unbroken Tradition. It is solely on that basis he lifted what everyone else thought was an abrogation of The Old Rite.

        February 23, 2015 at 9:37 am
  • editor

    Please note that I have received the following email from Professor John Haldane:

    Dear Patricia,

    It has been brought to my attention that you cite me as endorsing Catholic Truth in a current discussion of Confirmation see

    While I think I have commended you for your sincere commitment to the good of the Church and your rigour in argumentation you know well that we have disagree on points and that I have been critical of the tone and the outlook of contributions in print and online Catholic Truth material. I would prefer not to write publicly but perhaps you would be good enough either to delete the comments mentioning me or else note that I have said they do not give a full picture of my view of CT.

    Thank you


    I replied to say that I had not intended to give the impression that Professor Haldane endorsed CT (certainly not in the normal useage of that word) but that I would gladly post his email here to make clear that he does not endorse our work.

    May I add two things: firstly, Professor Haldane DID write publicly about CT, in the dissenting journal Open House. It was following that article that he wrote for publication in CT and I responded at length.

    Secondly,, I not give a “full picture” of John’s view of CT partly because I was making a particular point – essentially that not everyone in some standing within the Church is entirely negative about us! – but also because I did not have time to go into our “full picture” of Professor Haldane’s published beliefs either. I have had quite extensive email correspondence over time with Professor Haldane on certain points of theology and his errors on some matters have been the subject of a lengthy article by me in our newsletter. So, be assured there was no intention to give any wrong impression and I hope that publishing the Professor’s email here will clarify matters for all concerned.

    February 23, 2015 at 11:17 am
  • Petrus

    Common Sense

    I note that you say a Church Law allows a priest to Confirm . This is true. However, I direct your attention to Canon Law.

    Can.  884 §1. The diocesan bishop is to administer confirmation personally or is to take care that another bishop administers it. If necessity requires it, he can grant the faculty to one or more specific presbyters, who are to administer this sacrament

    Now, if necessity requires it. I wonder what constitutes as “necessity”. The bishops before Vatican II didn’t seem to have this same “necessity”.

    You say mixing two rites makes a “new rite”. You are right. However, the rites of the Church must be “received” and “approved”. Can you point to a time in history when a “new rite” was concocted without being “received”?

    Now, the fact that I cannot name a diocese that doesn’t use Olive Oil means nothing. You have admitted in several posts on this thread that other oils have been used. That’s enough grounds for doubt.

    February 28, 2015 at 6:37 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: