If the bishop knowingly approves mortal sin in confirmation, it calls into question the validity of confirmation of all, it seems to me. It raises an interesting question of canon law
Yes, that is interesting point. But if a Bishop were to, for example, tell a priest he can commit adultery, both parties would be implicated in mortal sin. The authority for wrongly approving it, and the priest for going along with it.
But you do raise an interesting question about the validity of the confirmation at all. Might have to check with MagisteriumAI and see what Canon Law says about it.
For instance if a bishop approved the use of Oreos and Pepsi for the Eucharist (yes it happens among ‘beach Protestants), does the Sacrament have any validity?
What Bishop delegated authority to Father Martin to conduct the confirmation? Responsibility is with the Bishop.
Good point. I thought about talking about that aspect, but felt the conversation on mortal sin was more substantial.
If the bishop knowingly approves mortal sin in confirmation, it calls into question the validity of confirmation of all, it seems to me. It raises an interesting question of canon law
Yes, that is interesting point. But if a Bishop were to, for example, tell a priest he can commit adultery, both parties would be implicated in mortal sin. The authority for wrongly approving it, and the priest for going along with it.
But you do raise an interesting question about the validity of the confirmation at all. Might have to check with MagisteriumAI and see what Canon Law says about it.
Thank you. I don’t know the canon law. Authority is in office, not person but not sure how it works with willful violation of known church teaching.
For instance if a bishop approved the use of Oreos and Pepsi for the Eucharist (yes it happens among ‘beach Protestants), does the Sacrament have any validity?
No.