M
MNathaniel
Guest
Correct, God gave us a valid sacrament and man created a mess by changing it.
Now man has to mop up the mess he made.
Overreactions to the whole "I" and "We' Baptize you clarification?
- Status
Now man has to mop up the mess he made.
T
TMC
Guest
Not sure how you got there out of my comments. I am just pointing out the logical conclusion of this determination by the Church. It is certainly in the Church’s authority to make this determination, but its hard to avoid the logical result of it.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
I’m not the one trying to avoid the logical result of it.MNathaniel:
Not sure how you got there out of my comments. I am just pointing out the logical conclusion of this determination by the Church. It is certainly in the Church’s authority to make this determination, but its hard to avoid the logical result of it.
I’m arguing that we have to acknowledge and act consistent with the logical result (ie permit conditional and in forma absoluta baptisms, and other sacraments like confirmation and holy orders, as necessary relevant to specific cases, for those affected who are still living).
My argument is against only that speech which says that a logical result requiring such actions would be bad and therefore we shouldn’t believe a good God would allow it.
If that’s not your argument, you and I are not arguing.
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
And that’s perhaps the kind of private rationalization made by the prideful innovators who decided the traditional wording preserved and passed down by the Church founded by Jesus wasn’t good enough, and they’d ‘cleverly’ change some things up. Telling themselves “Well it’s okay, because ‘we’ includes I!”
No rationalization works now. The CDF has ruled on the matter. “We” invalidates.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I’m not trying to avoid the result, just pointing it out.
I acknowledge that the Church has the authority to make this determination, but I don’t think that determination is mandated by anything I have seen. If it were my decision, I would go a different way; and my opinion is that would be more consistent with both Scripture and Church tradition. But its not my decision, and my opinion doesn’t really matter (except to me). I am just wondering how the Church will deal with the fall out of this, as people pop up all over the world concerned that their sacraments are invalid, or claiming that another’s sacraments are invalid.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Understand what the Church means by this first. Bold is my emphasis
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
[846] How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
[848] "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
[846] How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
[848] "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Personally I hope she’ll deal with the fall-out by just sprinkling a few drops of water on the concerned people, and saying the few conditional words.
It’ll be a lot quicker, easier, and more painless than insisting on long drawn-out canon law cases with each individual.
It’s not as if (pandemic aside) most people don’t still draw near to their priest at least once a week. Priests could privately offer a monthly group ‘conditional baptism’ event for those who approach them with concerns. It honestly won’t take up that much time, and at least will take up less time than fighting the frightened people (and later having to do all that work healing the pastoral wounds suffered by people who had to fight Church authorities to obtain a perceived need).
This is a “drop of medicine is worth a pound of cure” situation, in my opinion.
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
You might be missing the part where the pope himself said that they are invalid.
We ought, and we do. That does not however grant us the liberty to presume.
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
I believe that the quantum leap occurs where people conclude that the need for re-ordination implies a vocation spent administering sacraments invalidly and in similar fashion have been saying invalid mass.
To me this is an overreach being applied to the clarification. Sure- if a priest scours records and discovers he was baptized invalidly, he should seek a baptism and re-ordination for propriety. But to deduce that he had spent a whole vocation invalidly is an overreach of the clarification.
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
You misunderstand my position. I have no issue with the clarification, rather the deductions some have made which flow forth from it.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
And through no fault of their own means more than just being told by Catholics they need to convert.
If God doesn’t draw them to the Church, they are not at fault for not converting.
If God doesn’t draw them to the Church, they are not at fault for not converting.
Last edited:
F
F_Marturana
Guest
This is an older article:
https://jimmyakin.com/2005/09/conditional_bap.html
https://jimmyakin.com/2005/09/conditional_bap.html
Couldn’t that be the case with those confused if their baptism was or was not valid?
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
It rather seems that you are the one overreaching, by insisting the only reason to baptize and ordain Fr. Hood was propriety.
That certainly wasn’t the deduction of Archbishop Vigneron, who made it clear that certain sacraments that Fr. Hood attempted to administer prior to being actually ordained a priest, were invalid.
Archbishop Vigneron and others seem to be calmly following the evidence where it leads. It is you that seems to be trying to make a quantum leap.
You may not want it to be possible that an invalid sacrament cannot be presumed to impart the effect of a valid sacrament. That doesn’t change reality.
Last edited:
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
Imo this represents an overreaction/legalistic conclusion. So in this set of logical conclusions, does it follow that they might well be a multiplier effect of invalid baptisms and ordinations? Let’s say a bishop might be invalidly baptised. Is everything wchih flows forth from his ministry invalid? Each ordination and subsequently the ministry of each priest (masses and sacraments) all invalid?
Again, to clarify- I’m not disputing the clarification issued by cdf, rather I’m proposing that it is being amplified some steps removed from the actual matter at hand.
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
My reading of this and the source is that the repercussions of said priests re-ordination (and the validity of the masses/sacraments through his ministry) is in fact not a decided or clear matter…
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
Amen. And many Catholic commentators have pounced on this headline “can you imagine how many priest are saying invalid masses, how many sacraments are being administered invalidly etc.” It is absurd…
Again I remind people- no problems with the clarification. Indeed, re-ordination is necessary, should a priest discover his baptism was invalid (without promotion of scrupulosity). But to propose that his ministry was thus invalid and all sacraments/masses which flowed forth also invalid seems an overreaction to the clarification.
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
No that is not my position. I am proposing that there is an overreaction to a clarification. The clarification is not being disputed. It’s proposed permutations are. And they are not being disputed due to the ‘problem of evil.’ But rather ,I am disputing the proposed permutations by suggesting that they do not follow.
So, a priest who through no fault of his own was baptized using incorrect wording, has led an invalid ministry? Thereby depriving his congregation of sacraments and the mass? I do not think that this was the aim of the clarification. Should he be re-ordained and rebaptised? Of course- no disagreement here from me. But his ministry was invalid? I can’t see that.
P
PatienceAndHumility
Guest
I think this is where I just cannot make the logical connection. Does the church have anything about this particular CDF clarification which states that any such affected priest’s ministry up to that point was invalid? If so, would it follow forth that there should be some sort of notice sent out to all congregation of said priest to alert them of the invalid sacraments and masses they have been receiving. I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse (though it might appear I am!)
M
MNathaniel
Guest
With respect, friend, the Church has declared something to be true about validity of baptism, and the word “valid” means something objective and consequential, not subjective. Just because in sacraments a sign signifies an invisible reality, doesn’t mean there isn’t a ‘reality’ to the invisible thing, regardless of what we subjectively imagine about it.
The Church has declared that those who received invalid baptism “must” receive valid baptism in forma absoluta and she says nothing whatsoever to suggest this is a mere matter of propriety. Rather, through her authoritative members like Archbishop Vigneron, she demonstrates the consistency of her teaching about sacramental realities by not only having Fr. Hood receive the sacraments validly, but also reaching out and contacting those they knew did not receive certain sacraments validly from Fr. Hood who was unable to administer certain sacraments validly before being validly ordained, so that this could be rectified.
You say that you cannot see that what the Church says is true, is true. It therefore seems to me that the problem is with your ability to see.
And I’m not sure how to help you further beyond praying for you that God gives you eyes to see.
PS if you have not yet reviewed it, please review the FAQ wherein Archbishop Vigneron offered answers to the faithful in response to such anticipated questions following the public case of Fr. Hood:
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
- Status