Posted on 08/22/2020 4:09:25 PM PDT by ebb tide
You're question is nonsensical; whether anyone catches it or not, it's an invalid baptism.
No kidding.
Changing the language doesn't solve anything. (If you want to promote Latin, at least find practical examples of how Latin excels over the vernacular. A renegade priest or deacon who wants to change the words of a prayer can do this in Latin as easily as he could in the vernacular. Simply repeating the clarion call for more Latin doesn't address this problem.)
See the link in post #20. It answers your question.
This isn't a language problem; it's a priest/deacon problem, and simply calling for a return to Latin doesn't address this.
Sure it does.
Thanks, Campion.
See your PMs.
Unfortunately, he probably wasn't ordained by a bishop consecrated in the pre-Paul VI Catholic rite. This is the much bigger, widespread issue in the Novus Ordo. He should find himself a bishop consecrated in the Old Rite.
This is the Catholic Caucus.
Therefore, a nun has been dispatched to your location to smack your knuckles with a ruler.
To further prepare you for the Sacrament of Penance:
1) Define “validity”.
2) Define “liceity”.
3) Explain how these two terms apply to the Holy and August Sacrifice of the Mass said in accordance with the so-called Ordinary Rite or Novus Ordo.
4) Explain how these two terms apply to the Holy and August Sacrifice of the Mass said in accordance with the so-called Extraordinary Rite or Vetus Ordo.
5) Admit that your line of reasoning was ill-considered and likely to cause scandal and lead little ones into perdition.
I appreciate your concern for my soul; however, given the state of the Church since Vatican II, it's important for Catholics to take a close look at anything post-Vatican II ... and that includes the changes made to the ordination and consecration rites by Paul VI.
We used to have a priest here who thought it was part of his job description to provide a running narrative of everything he did in the Mass, in addition to saying the actual prayers. He wouldn't have been able to do that in Latin, and switching back and forth from Latin to English in the Latin Mass would have been obvious to everyone and would have sounded somewhat silly.
“That said, if you recall any grave (mortal) sins that you would have confessed to Father Hood before he was validly ordained and you have not yet been to a subsequent confession, you must bring them to your next confession explaining to any priest what has happened. If you cannot remember if you confessed any grave sins, you should bring that fact to your next confession as well. A subsequent absolution will include those sins and will give you peace of mind,” the guide said.
Detroit man thought he was a priest. He wasn't even a baptized Catholic
That is a very pastoral statement.
Either you walk away with grace . . . or you don’t.
Either you are married . . . or you aren’t.
Doesn’t it contradict your assertion in your post #4 by stating mortal sins confessed to Fr. Hood should be reconfessed?
That part of it certainly does. That it states that they came away with grace goes the other way.
It will deal nicely with scruples.
As I stated at some point, while I believe that my position is the stronger, it strikes me as an area where things are not so defined as to preclude diversity among theologians. Where things are unclear, the pastoral thing is to cover all of your bases.
Grace: yes
Absolution: no
Otherwise there would be no call to reconfess.
Placeholder
But would you call the archdiocesan statement to be "casuistry"?
No. Whatever its faults, casuistry tends to rigorously apply logic to its premises, for good or ill, and is not much for internal contradiction.
I don’t see an “internal contradiction”.
If you do, please point it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.