God may not be bound by the Sacraments, but the Sacraments are bound by what God defined them to be. Baptism of desire isn’t a consolation prize, it describes God imparting the same graces of baptism if they never had the chance. It is not, however, baptism, just like spiritual communion isn’t like receiving the Eucharist.This isn’t legalism, this is charity. When someone is baptized, they should get precisely that.
But he was still a priest. Married men can be validly ordained, this is a regular pattern in the East and does happen in the West in certain circumstances. If he was not ordained when he attempted marriage, his attempt at marriage did not invalidate his ordination. He was acting illicitly but not invalidly
Yeah. I’m just railing. Maybe rebelling. It just seems to be overly legalistic to me. I understand proper form.
Everyone has a right to receive the Sacraments properly, both validly and licitly. It shouldn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, educated or not, male or female. Our actions have very real consequences, good and bad. No one should have to question whether their baptism was like everyone else’s because Father said “we”, or milk was used instead of water, or God’s name was never invoked. We all begin our Christian lives the same way under the same principles. And the law protects our right to have exactly that.
Yes, if he had died before this all came out, the baptism of desire would have applied to him, since he would have wished to be baptized if he had known he was somehow not.
Christ is the eternal word, and his perfect fulfilment of the law and every inspired part of it, as a covenant between humanity and God, endures until his return. He gave us a new law, and a new covenant, and following its inevitably tedious demands, because of its material existence, is not legalism. We worship in “spirit and in truth” but we do not abrogate the law or isolate the law from the spirit, and it is the responsibility of the descendants of the Apostles to safeguard the doctrines of the church by the office and power entrusted to them.
Yes, I know. Thanks for your kind response.
Huey Lewis and the News make it a point to reach out to people with special needs, and that alone makes them one of my favorite groups. It’s just simple, bright, happy pop music, and doesn’t profess to be anything else.Tis_Bearself:
Frowny Face
Have seen him live.
Can you provide an example? I am still trying to find an example of a marriage that would be invalid strictly on the basis of Fr. Hood not having valid Holy Orders.
Fair enough. I have a similar reaction to Michael Bublé. My son likes to tease me about it.
Before they got all “pop”-ey, they were a REAL rock & roll band. Chris Hayes is a wicked guitar man.
I was just thinking of the fact that a priest or deacon is the ordinary witness to a marriage, and Fr Hood in reality was not a priest. I do realize, however, that the Church can and does give permission in some cases for a lay person to be the Church’s witness to a marriage. There probably wouldn’t even be a need for a sanatio in radice, but just to cover all the bases, the Church might wish to do this ad cautelam.HomeschoolDad:
Can you provide an example? I am still trying to find an example of a marriage that would be invalid strictly on the basis of Fr. Hood not having valid Holy Orders.