Can priests Confirm?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Do priests have the ability to Confirm, or is Confirmation reserved only to a bishop? I was confirmed by a Roman priest, and thought I would ask as I've only heard of bishops confirming in the Anglican/Episcopal Church.

Thanks,
Anglican Crusader

 

[benedictine]

This is a practice not allowed in Agnlicanism, as historically, only Bishops were given authority to confirm.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

That's what I suspected. Is my confirmation recognized as valid but illicit? Or is it invalid?

 

[benedictine]

I'm not entirely certain..... but I think it might be invalid.

 

[PaladinValer]

I would suspect that there is probably a good exception for the rule, but Benedictine is right.

anglicancrusader, please give us your story?

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I was baptized within the Anglican Communion, but I drifted away from the Church for sometime. I tend to be very conservative on social and theological matters, and what the wider Episcopal Church appeared to be adopting scared my mother and I away.

For short time I was active in my grandmother's Presbyterian church. A huge controversy in which their pastor was removed had us leave.

I was drawn to the Roman church because of it's conservative stance, and similarity to Anglicanism. I sort of immersed myself in it for several months, went through RCIA, and was confirmed and received by a Roman priest last Easter.

Eventually I began to miss the Church I was baptized in, and the irreverence at mass bothered me very much. I felt called to return to my old parish, and fought it off for awhile.

My mother and I discussed this, and we made the choice to return.

The longest way round is the shortest way home.

 

[PaladinValer]

If the Confirmation was valid in the Vatican Church, then it is valid in the Anglican Church.

If you wish, you can choose to be Recepted in the Anglican Church, which must be done by a bishop.

 

[Finella]

Y'know, it just now stuck me as funny (strange) that a priest can baptize, but a priest (traditionally) cannot confirm. Isn't confirmation simply "confirming" your baptismal vows? And if confirmation is a sacramental rite (right? ) then the priest's baptism seems to be -- sacramentally -- a bigger deal than confirmation. Hunh.

correct me if my reasoning is at all off, though...

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

If I'm correct, even the laity can perform Baptism. (though the cases are usually extreme)

I wish Father Rick would wander in here!

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

If the Confirmation was valid in the Vatican Church, then it is valid in the Anglican Church.

I'm glad to hear this.

 

[Albion]

Y'know, it just now stuck me as funny (strange) that a priest can baptize, but a priest (traditionally) cannot confirm. Isn't confirmation simply "confirming" your baptismal vows? And if confirmation is a sacramental rite (right? ) then the priest's baptism seems to be -- sacramentally -- a bigger deal than confirmation. Hunh.

correct me if my reasoning is at all off, though...

The thinking behind Confirmation used to be that the candidate was to be presented to the bishop for confirming that his baptism was valid. That's why there's a presentation involved in the wording. We don't have the same worries today, so perhaps that thinking is out of date. But just the same, the purpose of the event (or sacrament, if you think that way) is tied to the bishop. For it to be delegated to his representative, the presbyter, is something that is even in today's RCC done only for exceptional reasons.

 

[Father Rick]

If I'm correct, even the laity can perform Baptism. (though the cases are usually extreme)

I wish Father Rick would wander in here!

Am I late?

Yes, laity may baptize when necessary, although it is preferred that the baptism be performed by a priest (or deacon with episcopal permission).

As to confirmation-- in the Eastern Orthodox churches, priests normally baptize and confirm at one time (called chrismation). In the Roman rite of 'Viaticum' (Last Rites) there is a rite for the priest to confirm when baptism, confirmation, reconciliation and eucharist are conducted as a continuous rite for those in imminent danger of dying. My understanding is that recently, many Roman priests have been granted episcopal permission to confirm outside of Viaticum (in other words under normal circumstances). All of these confirmations would be considered both valid and licit.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Thank you so very much, Father!

God bless!

 

[Timothy]

If my memory serves me right, can't a priest do it in the Anglican church with permission? I know it said that in the 1662 BCP...

Upon the day appointed, all that are to be then confirmed, being placed, and standing in order, before the Bishop; he (or some other Minister appointed by him) shall read this Preface following.

Doesn't that imply that a Priest can confirm if absolutely necessary?

Timothy

 

[Albion]

If my memory serves me right, can't a priest do it in the Anglican church with permission? I know it said that in the 1662 BCP...



Doesn't that imply that a Priest can confirm if absolutely necessary?

Timothy

That sure seems to answer the question!

 

[Microspore]

Y'know, it just now stuck me as funny (strange) that a priest can baptize, but a priest (traditionally) cannot confirm. Isn't confirmation simply "confirming" your baptismal vows? And if confirmation is a sacramental rite (right? ) then the priest's baptism seems to be -- sacramentally -- a bigger deal than confirmation. Hunh.

correct me if my reasoning is at all off, though...

Ah, I know the answer to this! This is how it was explained by my liturgics prof...

Historically, Baptism and Confirmation were a unified rite, conducted by a bishop (this was in the days before the order of presbyters showed up!). After Christianity became the imperial religion and churches proliferated like fleas on a dog (okay, bad analogy), the bishops delegated the baptism part to priests. Once a year, the bishop would ride through the parish of St. Swithun or whatever, and people would lift up their children to have hands laid on them by him.

And so, this is why Confirmation is retained as an episcopal office: it "finishes off" the initiating rite, which is the prerogative of the bishop. And so the episcopal sacraments are three: Confirmation, ordination, and the blessing of oils.

 

[Father Rick]

Greetings Microspore!

Welcome to STR... it'll be great to have another priest around here!

I have to warn you though--- I'm probably on the opposite end of the spectrum from you on a lot of issues (I read your profile) and I love a good debate! (As do most of us here)

Blessings!

 

[Fish and Bread]

Ah, I know the answer to this! This is how it was explained by my liturgics prof...

Welcome! It's great to have a second priest around to discuss things with. Father Rick has definitely been a huge asset to this forum.

I noticed which diocese you listed yourself as being from in your profile. Your bishop is a very courageous man.

John

 

[PaladinValer]

Welcome Father Microspore!

Nice to have another priest hanging around STR.

We'll have to find you a place in the kingdom we have here!

 

[Father Rick]

Welcome Father Microspore!

Nice to have another priest hanging around STR.

We'll have to find you a place in the kingdom we have here!

But watch out for Paladin...

He has a nasty habit of eating newbies and burying their bones under the Alehouse!