Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation?

Question

(NOTE: I am aware that a similar question has been asked on this site before, but I have first hand experiences which seem to contradict the one answer - at the time this question was asked - to that other question.)

The standard practice of the western churches which make use of the sacrament of confirmation - e.g. the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion - is that this sacrament is only to be conferred by a bishop - except where a bishop delegates this responsibility to a priest for some practical reason. Those, as I understand it, are the requirements for the conferring of the sacrament to be licit, but might a conferral of the sacrament under different circumstances still be valid, even if it was illicit?

This might seem to be one of those silly brainteasers, but I ask for a very concrete, personal reason. I was born into a relatively observant Anglican family, was baptised and later confirmed according to the rites of that church, in which I spent the first thirty years of my life, until, in 2021, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church. As part of the process of my being received, I had to provide my baptismal certificate; there was, of course, no question of my being re-baptised, since, in principle, anyone can baptise anyone else. I was pleasantly surprised to be told that I wouldn't have to be re-confirmed either; the opinion of the diocese was that the Roman Catholic and Anglican sacraments of confirmation were 'the same'. In the service in which I was received, I simply recited the Nicene Creed solo, and then received the bread and wine shortly after.

Unfortunately for my brain, I've never been able to stop wondering why the Roman Catholic Church viewed my Anglican confirmation as valid! I understand the logic regarding baptism; again, anyone can baptise anyone else. But, to be valid, doesn't confirmation have to be performed by a bishop, or at least a priest acting on a bishop's behalf? And doesn't the Roman Catholic Church view Anglican ordinations as null and void? Or is it that a confirmation performed by a non-priest could be valid, at least in principle, but would be illicit?

Some short specific questions which summarise the issues I raised above:

1. Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation according to the Roman Catholic Church?
2. Is the sacrament of confirmation as practied by Anglicans recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church?
3. If a priest conferred the sacrament of confirmation without a bishop's approval, I imagine that would be illicit, but would it also be invalid, with the person in question needing to be re-confirmed?
4. What is the impact of this issue on Christians who move between sacramental traditions - Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc, etc - each of which has slightly different views on how the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred?

Answer 1

Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation?

1. Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation according to the Roman Catholic Church?

According to Catholicism, the ordinary minister of administration of the sacrament of confirmation is the local ordinary (bishop) of the diocese. In case of necessity, or for some other serious reason a local bishop may delegate this to a priest within his diocese.

This is explained in Canon Law:

The Minister of Confirmation

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Can. 883 The following possess the faculty of administering confirmation by the law itself:

1/ within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, those who are equivalent in law to a diocesan bishop;

2/ as regards the person in question, the presbyter who by virtue of office or mandate of the diocesan bishop baptizes one who is no longer an infant or admits one already baptized into the full communion of the Catholic Church;

3/ as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any presbyter.

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.

§2. For a grave cause the bishop and even the presbyter endowed with the faculty of confirming in virtue of the law or the special grant of the competent authority can in single cases also associate presbyters with themselves to administer the sacrament.

2. Is the sacrament of confirmation as practiced by Anglicans recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church?

No, the sacrament of confirmation within the Anglican Church is not recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII in 1896 declared Anglican orders invalid in his papal bull Apostolicae curae (On the Nullity of Anglican Orders). If their holy orders are invalid then their sacrament of confirmation is equally invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

3. If a priest conferred the sacrament of confirmation without a bishop's approval, I imagine that would be illicit, but would it also be invalid, with the person in question needing to be reconfirmed?

The sacrament is invalid and if an Anglican converts to Catholicism, he or she must be confirmed validly by a Catholic minister. The sacrament is administered validly only by a priest with the permission (granting of the faculties) of the local ordinary (bishop) and within the jurisdiction of the local diocese.

Can. 887 A presbyter who possesses the faculty of administering confirmation also confers this sacrament licitly on externs in the territory assigned to him unless their proper ordinary prohibits it; he cannot confer it validly on anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 883, n. 3.

Can. 888 Within the territory in which they are able to confer confirmation, ministers can administer it even in exempt places.

4. What is the impact of this issue on Christians who move between sacramental traditions - Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc, etc - each of which has slightly different views on how the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred?

The traditional administration of the various Churches and Rites are recognized as valid and legitimate between the various Churches and Traditions.

For example, confirmation is always received at the time of baptism in the Eastern Catholic Churches. This is equally the practice of the Orthodox Churches, and is recognized as valid way of administration of the sacrament according to their tradition!

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, Chrismation (Confirmation) is always received at the time of Baptism. Since many Eastern Catholic children attend Catholic schools of the Latin Church, the question of Chrismation arises at Confirmation time. Since Chrismation cannot be repeated, it is prohibited to repeat this sacrament.

If it is found that a child belonging to an Eastern Church has not yet received Chrismation, the child must then be chrismated in his or her proper autonomous ritual Church. - Eastern Catholic Christians in Full Communion

These various Churches and Rites along with their various liturgical traditions have the right to be preserved. The Churches of the West and East breath with two lungs so to speak!

Answer 2

I will first answer your specific questions.

1. Who can validly confer the sacrament of confirmation according to the Roman Catholic Church?

Ordinarily a validly ordained bishop, but it can be delegated to a priest.

2. Is the sacrament of confirmation as practised by Anglicans recognised as valid by the Roman Catholic Church?

No. Chrism can only be validly administered by a validly ordained priest. The Anglican rite has no valid priests, let alone bishops.

To deny this doctrine is a mortal sin indirectly against the faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (also called On the Nullity of Anglican Orders):

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

It also doesn't use properly consecrated chrism since they do not have priests.

3. If a priest conferred the sacrament of confirmation without a bishop's approval, I imagine that would be illicit, but would it also be invalid, with the person in question needing to be re-confirmed?

It would be illicit but valid. For validity only the proper matter, form and intention are required and since jurisdiction is not part of neither for this sacrament it is always valid when the appropriate matter and form are observed.

4. What is the impact of this issue on Christians who move between sacramental traditions - Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc, etc - each of which has slightly different views on how the sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred?

Those who are Catholic adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church, apostates do whatever they please unto their damnation.

Now with regard to your circumstance...

You state:

"I've never been able to stop wondering why the Roman Catholic Church viewed my Anglican confirmation as valid!"

The Catholic Church does not view your confirmation as valid. The view of some heretics who are, unfortunately, leading people to Hell with their wicked teaching cannot overturn Apostolicae Curae which is completely irrevocable:

We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This heretical response you received from your diocese is a product of the abominable practice of ecumenism which has been condemned by the Catholic Church countless times.

For example, Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it,... from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

(...)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics...

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. Because what you perceive is the Catholic Church is in actual fact NOT the Catholic Church but the prophesied end times counter-Church is why it appeared to you that the Catholic Church's teaching on the validity of Anglican ordinations was contradictory or inconsistent. There are innumerable ways to prove this fact but since that is out of scope for this answer I will merely refer you to this video.