romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
Seriously dude? You cannot tell the difference between "fraud" and a legitimate mistake?This is not rocket science. This is Catholicism 101. The article explained it clearly for you:
"Father Hood was "devastated" to learn that not only was he not baptized or confirmed, but he also was not a validly ordained priest."
It was a fraud. All the Catholics at those Masses worshiped the bread, because none of them are capable of telling the difference between Jesus Christ and an inanimate object.
So no, this does not happen at every Mass. You are posting errors.
When someone is committing acts of "fraud" they INTEND to deceive a person or persons. They KNOW what they are doing and fully intend to do it. Perhaps the priest who baptized "We baptize" was a fraud. The priest celebrating Mass who wasn't validly ordained on the other hand was not a fraud. He had every reason to believe he was validly ordained.
Now, I will admit----as much as I love the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church, this kind of thing annoys me about Catholicism. The Church at times, I think tries to be so darn precise. In attempting to be so darn precise, the Church gets trapped in her own logic and then winds up getting eaten by her own logic.
The concern of the Church in this case was to uphold the integrity of the Sacrament of Baptism. The proper baptismal formula is "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" not "We baptize." By charging the ritual, the priest changed the Faith. The Sacraments are not magic. The Sacraments are a mechanism of Tradition. Thus, the Sacramental celebrations must reflect the Faith of the Church. So I can understand why the Church felt the need to rule the baptisms invalid. The priest in essence, changed the Faith.
If I can give an analogy: it would be like your Pastor Bob, or Reverend Sue, or whatever they are in your sect leading me in the "sinners prayer" so I can get saved, but telling me to say to Jesus "I accept you as A lord and god" Rather than "I accept you as LORD and GOD." Christians do not believe that Jesus is merely a god, a lord, but LORD and GOD. However, I dare say your sect, unlike my sect, would not attempt to rule on a technicality and invalidate the sinners prayer based on Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob would be punished, rightly so, but the person who said the sinner's prayer would just be corrected as to what the proper belief is and who Jesus is--and on with your day. So--there I concede the point you are making. I wish the RCC would stop being so technical at times--becasue she winds up being eaten by her own logic.
The other side of this is just the point you are attempting to make--come on already guys! Seriously? The priest is the one at fault, not the people he baptized. If I had been king for a day I would have told whoever investigated this--to find a way to uphold the integrity of the Sacrament while ruling the baptisms valid. The Faithful should not have to be punished becasue the priest baptizing them messed up. That is an injustice.
So--in this---I do not know that I would say I am with you, but I can say--I understand your frustration. I am frustrated too. I wish the Church would stop with the technicalities nonsense. The God we worship is not a God of technicalities.
Last edited: