Conversation with Fr. James Gordon, FSSP, about Vatican II
#61
(12-31-2011, 03:35 AM)tradne4163 Wrote: I second that. He and I may disagree concerning the SSPX, but he is a very holy priest. I would advise anyone to be careful when criticizing a priest directly. Even if the priest is up to his eyeballs in sin, it is more offensive to God for one to judge a priest, for He regards it as an attack on Himself.

Charles Coulombe relates a story about a priest who left the priesthood and consecrated a bottle of wine in a restaurant out of spite.  The gentleman he was with took the bottle from him, drank it down and told the priest he would kill him if he ever attempted such a thing again. 

He also relates a story about a man who shot a priest who was trying to rape his wife. 

See this link for  audio:

http://www.tumblarhouse.com/audio.php

Anticlericalism

"A priest is an "altar christus", or other Christ, because he acts in the image and likeness of God, dispensing graces through the Sacraments. But what if our local parish priest spouts heresy? Or steals from the collection? Or frequently violates liturgical rubrics? Is he still entitled to our respect? To what extent may you criticize him? "
Reply
#62
Read what I said again. I didn't say 'never criticize a priest.' I advised to be careful when doing so. One of course can criticize specific actions, but impugning a priest's character is a whole other matter. There's a very fine line between the two. Even when taking issue with specific actions, one needs to be careful. The priestly office  is owed respect.
Ex: We trads tend to trade horror stories of liturgical abuse and why it was out of line. Good
Ex: Implying or outright saying that the priest in question has a moral defect. Not Good.
Does that help clarify my position?
Reply
#63
(12-29-2011, 11:26 AM)Tim Wrote: Baptism of desire or of blood are not the tap root of the problems we have today. Folks today believe every one goes to heaven because God is all merciful and ignores justice. This incessant harping on this baptism is a straw man. Go out and evangelize, not this going over the same territory over and over.

This "all good dogs go to heaven" heresy has it's roots in Calvinism double predestination and that those predestined are blessed by God with money and prosperity, conversely those without predestination go to Hell. This has morphed with the health and wealth gospell which says God wants everyone to be rich if you just pray like the televangelists tell folks to do. From there it is a small step to God wants all of us to go to Heaven and his Mercy makes it happen. In other words God's Justice is ignored.

Moreover, Baptism of Desire was taught before Vatican II, along with Baptism of Blood . These are not suspect, though not well defined. They like many others in the Church, operation is known only by God . Leave it alone. We have large issues to deal with like re-evangelizing the 25 million Catholics that left directly after the changes and are starving for the TLM.

[...]

Well said!
Reply
#64
(12-30-2011, 09:29 PM)Berber Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 01:00 AM)Vincentius Wrote: BOD is so rare that we don't actually know when it has been applied.  I don't know of any instance about anybody who actually didn't make it to his Baptism.  Do you?

There have been a few recorded instances of specific cases in which baptism of desire has been applied.

Pope Innocent II, basing himself on the authority of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, taught that a priest who had died without the water of baptism would still be freed from original sin because of his desire for baptism (Denzinger 388). The same pope relays the fact that St. Ambrose taught the same regarding a man named Valentinian who died before receiving the baptism he desired to receive (ibid.).

Pope Innocent III also taught that an unnamed Jewish man received baptism of desire (Dz. 413). Although the man did not receive a valid baptism, because he tried to administer it to himself at the moment of death, his faith in the sacrament sufficed to cleanse him from original sin (ibid.).   

Those who reject baptism of desire will probably object that the above examples are not ex cathedra teachings. I will reply that the Council of Trent explicitly taught baptism of desire in a solemn definition. They will reply that Trent teaches that desire and water are needed, although it says desire or water. The debate will then  become pointless as we wrangle over the meaning of aut in Trent. Nevertheless, there you have it, two popes far removed from Modernism teaching baptism of desire.

I know of the above cases.  What I meant was from our personal experience, has anybody known about somebody preparing for and not making it to the Baptism because of some untoward incident that took his life.  It is then that we can say, "He most probably was saved."  More probabilities:  since Baptism remits all sins including the penalties attached to them, this person would bypass Purgatory.  Of course the anti-BODs and Feeneyites would never buy these and the whole thing is moot. 

In the 40 days before Christ ascended to Heaven there isn't much recorded by the holy Scriptures about what Christ and the Apostles (and other disciples) did.  But we know that He told them: 

John 16:
12  I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.

John 14:
26 ... the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Was any teaching left out leading to Pentecost and beyond?  Hardly.  I believe everything was covered, since the Church's main preoccupation (lex suprema - supreme law) is the salvation of souls.  That includes the teaching of desire for Baptism and the desire for martyrdom.  But the anti's want the extraordinary and infallible declaration from the Magisterium and nothing else will do.

When we listen to the Dimonds and Feeney followers "preach," we ask who gave them the authority and where did they get the commission to preach?  Jesus Himself was asked, "Who sent you?"  (Matthew 21:23) 
Reply
#65
(12-31-2011, 06:36 AM)tradne4163 Wrote: Read what I said again. I didn't say 'never criticize a priest.' I advised to be careful when doing so. One of course can criticize specific actions, but impugning a priest's character is a whole other matter. There's a very fine line between the two. Even when taking issue with specific actions, one needs to be careful. The priestly office  is owed respect.
Ex: We trads tend to trade horror stories of liturgical abuse and why it was out of line. Good
Ex: Implying or outright saying that the priest in question has a moral defect. Not Good.
Does that help clarify my position? 

I read it and I understood it. I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear and concise.  I wrote it late last night.  What I was pointing out was that Christ does not automatically side with the priest and condemn the opponent of the priest as if he is attacking Christ himself as your previous post implied.  I'm certain that you understand the nuances of being prudential without compromising the truth.
 
What you are basically stating in your wording is "Be careful.  You are ipso facto attacking Christ."  I was worried that people may be confused by that idea, thinking you are sayi
Reply
#66
And I was speaking from experience as one who asked the question and received the answer.  You can expect the same results from every FSSP priest since the release of Summorum Pontificum.  Makes the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest a more desirable option.
Reply
#67
Just wanted to make a correction. I talked to Father Terrence Gordon, and he told me that it was not he who debated Peter Dimond. The title had it right after all.  :blush:
Wow, I never would have guessed just from the sound of his voice.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)