Local priest’s invalid baptism had ripple effect on sacraments, archdiocese says

[Edmundus1581]

Younger people, who have no living memory of a Church that, some say, was scary, oppressive, and overbearing, a

You make a couple of very good point. Firstly that the generation which was most inclined to liturgical tweaking was the one near the end of the pre-Vatican II era, and, secondly they we who didn’t know that era have little understanding of why they felt a need to shake off the restrictive Church they had known.

At 60 I’m a part of probably the last generation to have much personal contact with that generation and I can confirm that many, but not all, have memories such as you describe.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Younger people, who have no living memory of a Church that, some say, was scary, oppressive, and overbearing, a

You make a couple of very good point. Firstly that the generation which was most inclined to liturgical tweaking was the one near the end of the pre-Vatican II era, and, secondly they we who didn’t know that era have little understanding of why they felt a need to shake off the restrictive Church they had known.

At 60 I’m a part of probably the last generation to have much personal contact with that generation and I can confirm that many, but not all, have memories such as you describe.

My odometer is getting ready to run to the big 6-0 in about three weeks, so I’m sure we’ve encountered basically the same kind of people, simply put, people old enough to be our parents and beyond. (My parents were not raised Catholic and have no horror stories to tell about it.)

I know these people, at least the older ones among them, are supposed to be “The Greatest Generation” about whom no harsh word may ever be said, but truth be told, in their fervor to make the Church over anew, and to break completely with the past and usher in a new era, they left one heck of a mess that it falls upon our generation to try to clean up. Sorry if that appears to be contrary to the Fourth Commandment — that’s not my intent — but it’s the truth.

 

[runningdude]

In another thread I questioned whether the Vatican was correct, as the word ‘we’ in English can have the meaning ‘I’ when used by a monarch or similar person. As the priest stands in the place of Jesus, King of Kings, surely ‘we’ would be the correct formal English? There are also 10 languages that never make the distinction. Are all baptisms in those languages invalid?

It is a matter of proper intent. In the formula used in Father Hood’s baptism, the deacon clearly intended to baptize on behalf of the group. This would be defective intent, as baptism is an individual’s action. The “royal we” is a bit ambiguous; the king speaks for himself and the country. The country cannot baptize, but the king could as an individual.

The church ruled that the formula “we baptize” in English is simply too ambiguous to be considered valid, and is to be treated as presumptively invalid. Not every baptism using “we” would be actually be defective if used with correct intent, but there is grave doubt that necessitates repeating with the correct formula. There is no way to prove correct intent to perform the baptism as an individual when the approved English translation of the formula is not used.

Languages that have a common first person pronoun for I/we would not have this grave doubt, as long as the approved translation is used.

Father Hood married us before he was validly baptized and validly ordained. Is our marriage valid?

Due to the many different situations that the engaged couple may have been in, this answer may be different for each individual couple. You should speak to your pastor as soon as possible so any steps can be taken to remedy your marital status in the Church, if necessary.

For the vast majority of Catholics, it is not necessary to have a priest bless the union. Rather, they need an authorized representative of the church to witness the marriage and ensure that it is entered into freely. Father Hood was an authorized representative, even though his ordination is presumed invalid. Thus marriages for at least Latin (Roman-rite) Catholics would generally be presumed valid.

Only Eastern-rite Catholics would require the marriage to be repeated, as it is canonically necessary for a priest to bless the marriage. Other rare circumstances would need to consider on a case-by-case basis.

 

[FiveLinden]

Thank you…