Although Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay's study of the new rite of episcopal consecration remains foundational for many, his own community appears to have moved beyond it.
Though it does not detract from your thesis (I think you have succeeded in demonstrating your point about Avrille quietly moving away from Fr. Pierre-Marie’s study), the 2019 Avrille article is mistaken when it asserts:
“As to the bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI, the only known example of a bishop who joined Tradition is Bishop Lazo. This return to Tradition took place after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, but the SSPX has prudently kept away from ensuring [sic] him about episcopal functions.13”
The SSPX did not ensure +Lazo was not entrusted with episcopal functions, for as +de Mallerais stated:
“Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!”
+de Mallerais: "Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction."
This raises some important questions [edited to include answers from comment below]:
1. Is it valid for a priest to confirm without an indult from the Pope?
--- No.
2. Is it valid for a priest to confirm with just permission from his ordinary (this is in the Conciliar canon, but would that law actually be valid due to jurisdiction being supplied because of common error?)?
3. Is the permission for priests to confirm actually an act of jurisdiction? If so, it would mean that they have that power by virtue of ordination, but that they can only use it if they receive delegation (the same as confession).
--- No, and No.
4. In the absence of a reigning pope, does the law that a papal indult is necessary for a priest to confirm cease to oblige? If yes, does that mean any priest can confirm without needing permission?
--- No, because it is not jurisdiction so it cannot can be supplied, it is a power only the pope can give, and No.
I have seen your comments quite a bit on here, and as someone who is trying to be more open to other perspectives. (i.e. eastern rites having ordinary jurisdiction.) I figured I’d chime in. You seem to know your stuff.
More specifically, I want to touch on your third question. As far as I know Byzantine or any eastern rite priest can confirm (also called Chrism I believe) without being a bishop. I am not an expert, but if those priests are able to do it… I would think priests of the latin rite are ordained with that power as well.
I am still learning all this stuff, so I am interested in your own thoughts on this.
Yes, priests in Eastern Catholic churches do confirm or chrismate (usually Baptism, Confirmation and Communion are administered all at once to infants, in that order) but it is considered that this is an indult from the Pope, which Latin priests don't have, though in 1946 Pius XII gave all parish priests permission to confirm those in danger of death, in their territory.
"Confirmer suppose chez le prêtre une extension de son pouvoir sacramentel. Il faut que son Caractère sacerdotal soit étendu à un nouvel effet, soit d'une façon permanente et inamissible par la Consécration épiscopale, soit d'une façon transitoire et précaire par une délégation du Pape qui le peut, comme le dit saint Thomas d'Aquin, en vertu de la plénitude de son Pouvoir dans l'Eglise (Papa in Ecclesia habet plenitudinem potestatis).
Ce dont le prêtre manque pour pouvoir confirmer et qui peut lui être accordé par le Souverain Pontife, n'est pas dans la ligne de la juridiction qui lui donnerait un sujet à confirmer, mais dans la ligne du pouvoir d'ordre; c'est une dignité qui est référée à la même espèce que le pouvoir d'ordre, c'est une perfection du pouvoir d'ordre qu'il possède incomplètement."
Translation:
"Confirmation requires an extension of the priest's sacramental power. His priestly character must be extended to a new effect, either permanently and irrevocably through episcopal consecration, or temporarily and precariously through a delegation from the Pope, who, as Saint Thomas Aquinas states, can do so by virtue of the fullness of his power in the Church (Papa in Ecclesia habet plenitudinem potestatis).
What the priest lacks to be able to confirm, and which can be granted to him by the Supreme Pontiff, is not in the realm of jurisdiction that would give him grounds for confirmation, but in the realm of the power of Holy Orders; it is a dignity that belongs to the same category as the power of Holy Orders, it is a perfection of the power of Holy Orders that he possesses incompletely."
That answers my questions under 1 (It is not), 3 (No and No) and 4 (No, because it is not jurisdiction so it cannot can be supplied, it is a power only the pope can give, and No), but it still leaves the question under 2.
Does anyone know whether it is possible for a pope to delegate this power (to extend someone's priestly character to be able to confirm) to ordinaries? And if the answer is yes, would that canon be valid due to a supply of jurisdiction because of common error?
a very useful and timely article on a question that not only isn't going away, but rather is becoming more and more pressing and important, as the Conciliar Church is spiralling further and further out of control and we can therefore expect more priests from the N.O. to defect to the Catholic resistance. This however creates a problem for those attending chapels served by the SSPX; which has (it appears) adopted a more negative stance against the conditional re-ordination of these priests. Putting the faithful who assist at these chapels in a position of having to cease receiving the sacraments at these venues.
Also useful to know is that SSPX priests cannot validly confirm because they haven't been given this power by the Pope (or even by an ordinary, if that is valid). Archbishop Lefebvre tried to delegate this power to them, but I don't think he could delegate it because he wasn't an ordinary, and even if he was, it would be valid just for his diocese (this is what Abbé Belmont concluded as well).
I don't know if SSPX priests actually do confirmations. Does someone here know?
Absolutely. I had been discussing the uneasiness of trads regarding the NREC for a few days and then this article appeared! I do not think the outsiders to 'tradition' understand that uneasiness about the NREC exists because it is often obscured by other events and controversies. I think many will be revisiting both studies and perhaps we will see some new material as well.
Though it does not detract from your thesis (I think you have succeeded in demonstrating your point about Avrille quietly moving away from Fr. Pierre-Marie’s study), the 2019 Avrille article is mistaken when it asserts:
“As to the bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI, the only known example of a bishop who joined Tradition is Bishop Lazo. This return to Tradition took place after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, but the SSPX has prudently kept away from ensuring [sic] him about episcopal functions.13”
The SSPX did not ensure +Lazo was not entrusted with episcopal functions, for as +de Mallerais stated:
“Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!”
https://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/
I'll add that in as a footnote.
+de Mallerais: "Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction."
This raises some important questions [edited to include answers from comment below]:
1. Is it valid for a priest to confirm without an indult from the Pope?
--- No.
2. Is it valid for a priest to confirm with just permission from his ordinary (this is in the Conciliar canon, but would that law actually be valid due to jurisdiction being supplied because of common error?)?
3. Is the permission for priests to confirm actually an act of jurisdiction? If so, it would mean that they have that power by virtue of ordination, but that they can only use it if they receive delegation (the same as confession).
--- No, and No.
4. In the absence of a reigning pope, does the law that a papal indult is necessary for a priest to confirm cease to oblige? If yes, does that mean any priest can confirm without needing permission?
--- No, because it is not jurisdiction so it cannot can be supplied, it is a power only the pope can give, and No.
I have seen your comments quite a bit on here, and as someone who is trying to be more open to other perspectives. (i.e. eastern rites having ordinary jurisdiction.) I figured I’d chime in. You seem to know your stuff.
More specifically, I want to touch on your third question. As far as I know Byzantine or any eastern rite priest can confirm (also called Chrism I believe) without being a bishop. I am not an expert, but if those priests are able to do it… I would think priests of the latin rite are ordained with that power as well.
I am still learning all this stuff, so I am interested in your own thoughts on this.
Yes, priests in Eastern Catholic churches do confirm or chrismate (usually Baptism, Confirmation and Communion are administered all at once to infants, in that order) but it is considered that this is an indult from the Pope, which Latin priests don't have, though in 1946 Pius XII gave all parish priests permission to confirm those in danger of death, in their territory.
Abbé Belmont went into this question well in Cahiers de Cassiciacum n. 6.
Thanks. I've read what it says and, as I suspected, it's not an act of jurisdiction. I thought I remembered reading about it some years ago.
Here is the relevant part, from p. 10 (https://liguesaintamedee.ch/doc/Cahiers_de_Cassiciacum_6.pdf):
Original:
"Confirmer suppose chez le prêtre une extension de son pouvoir sacramentel. Il faut que son Caractère sacerdotal soit étendu à un nouvel effet, soit d'une façon permanente et inamissible par la Consécration épiscopale, soit d'une façon transitoire et précaire par une délégation du Pape qui le peut, comme le dit saint Thomas d'Aquin, en vertu de la plénitude de son Pouvoir dans l'Eglise (Papa in Ecclesia habet plenitudinem potestatis).
Ce dont le prêtre manque pour pouvoir confirmer et qui peut lui être accordé par le Souverain Pontife, n'est pas dans la ligne de la juridiction qui lui donnerait un sujet à confirmer, mais dans la ligne du pouvoir d'ordre; c'est une dignité qui est référée à la même espèce que le pouvoir d'ordre, c'est une perfection du pouvoir d'ordre qu'il possède incomplètement."
Translation:
"Confirmation requires an extension of the priest's sacramental power. His priestly character must be extended to a new effect, either permanently and irrevocably through episcopal consecration, or temporarily and precariously through a delegation from the Pope, who, as Saint Thomas Aquinas states, can do so by virtue of the fullness of his power in the Church (Papa in Ecclesia habet plenitudinem potestatis).
What the priest lacks to be able to confirm, and which can be granted to him by the Supreme Pontiff, is not in the realm of jurisdiction that would give him grounds for confirmation, but in the realm of the power of Holy Orders; it is a dignity that belongs to the same category as the power of Holy Orders, it is a perfection of the power of Holy Orders that he possesses incompletely."
That answers my questions under 1 (It is not), 3 (No and No) and 4 (No, because it is not jurisdiction so it cannot can be supplied, it is a power only the pope can give, and No), but it still leaves the question under 2.
Does anyone know whether it is possible for a pope to delegate this power (to extend someone's priestly character to be able to confirm) to ordinaries? And if the answer is yes, would that canon be valid due to a supply of jurisdiction because of common error?
If the pope can delegate the power directly to priests of the Eastern rites (albeit tacitly), he must be able to delegate it to bishops?
According to +de Mallerais, Can. 209 supplies jurisdiction for priests to confirm in necessity (see footnote 13).
That contention is contested by John Daly here:
https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1260/supplied-jurisdiction-bishop-axiom-daly
Sean,
a very useful and timely article on a question that not only isn't going away, but rather is becoming more and more pressing and important, as the Conciliar Church is spiralling further and further out of control and we can therefore expect more priests from the N.O. to defect to the Catholic resistance. This however creates a problem for those attending chapels served by the SSPX; which has (it appears) adopted a more negative stance against the conditional re-ordination of these priests. Putting the faithful who assist at these chapels in a position of having to cease receiving the sacraments at these venues.
Also useful to know is that SSPX priests cannot validly confirm because they haven't been given this power by the Pope (or even by an ordinary, if that is valid). Archbishop Lefebvre tried to delegate this power to them, but I don't think he could delegate it because he wasn't an ordinary, and even if he was, it would be valid just for his diocese (this is what Abbé Belmont concluded as well).
I don't know if SSPX priests actually do confirmations. Does someone here know?
I think the only times it happens are a) danger of death, and b) when someone unconfirmed is getting married.
Thanks. Still concerning but at least it is very limited.
Thanks for this Michael. Yes, that situation is concerning.
Absolutely. I had been discussing the uneasiness of trads regarding the NREC for a few days and then this article appeared! I do not think the outsiders to 'tradition' understand that uneasiness about the NREC exists because it is often obscured by other events and controversies. I think many will be revisiting both studies and perhaps we will see some new material as well.