Author Topic: Would you rather avoid controversial priests? (Read 6658 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #10 on:** June 26, 2015, 06:19:19 PM »

AJNC,
"Spending habits" of a priest may tarnish his reputation, but his masses are still legit. If one is affected by his spending habits, one must use prudence but is that any reason to not attend his mass?

Not all priests are the Cure of Ars...not even close. We all have our temptations to fight. Thank God the sacraments do not depend on the sanctity of priests!

AJNC · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2015, 01:06:53 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

AJNC,
"Spending habits" of a priest may tarnish his reputation, but his masses are still legit. If one is affected by his spending habits, one must use prudence but is that any reason to not attend his mass?

Not all priests are the Cure of Ars...not even close. We all have our temptations to fight. Thank God the sacraments do not depend on the sanctity of priests!

Thanks for jogging my memory Pax Vobis. Nearly 20 years ago a priest friend of mine, the late Fr Anthony D'Costa sj, told me this true story:-
His seminary professor was passing through a remote town in South America. Near the town square, in the middle of the day, there was a man sprawled out completely drunk on the road. On enquiring, he was told that this was the only priest for miles around on whom the people depended on for valid sacraments.
The lesson to the seminarians was that the sacraments do not depend on the sanctity of the priests.

But, in my view, there could be a danger especially if a priest is poorly formed or is malicious enough to take advantage of this fact.

Slightly deviating from the topic, I have personally experienced priests taking advantage of the fact that they are the only ones providing the TLM virtually in the whole country.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2015, 01:13:18 AM »

Quote from: AJNC

Quote from: Pax Vobis
AJNC,
"Spending habits" of a priest may tarnish his reputation, but his masses are still legit. If one is affected by his spending habits, one must use prudence but is that any reason to not attend his mass?

Not all priests are the Cure of Ars...not even close. We all have our temptations to fight. Thank God the sacraments do not depend on the sanctity of priests!

Thanks for jogging my memory Pax Vobis. Nearly 20 years ago a priest friend of mine, the late Fr Anthony D'Costa sj, told me this true story:-
His seminary professor was passing through a remote town in South America. Near the town square, in the middle of the day, there was a man sprawled out completely drunk on the road. On enquiring, he was told that this was the only priest for miles around on whom the people depended on for valid sacraments.
The lesson to the seminarians was that the sacraments do not depend on the sanctity of the priests.

But, in my view, there could be a danger especially if a priest is poorly formed or is malicious enough to take advantage of this fact.

Slightly deviating from the topic, I have personally experienced priests taking advantage of the fact that they are the only ones providing the TLM virtually in the whole country.

In the Cronicles of the Catholic Church in Lithuania (samizdat written during the Soviet era) they tell the story of how a committee went to the authorities to ask that a certain priest be allowed to minister to their community. (everything was controlled by the government and you needed permission for everything) The official started to rattle of teh sins and vices of this particular priest when he was interupted. "We did not ask you to tell us about his sins." an old woman said, "We want him to come and say mass for us."

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2015, 02:30:36 PM »

Quote from: Matthew (Jun 24, 2015, 1:51 pm)

I will grant that today there are a few priests who are "controversial" or "hot potatoes". One of them is even a bishop. Some people have washed their hands of these priests; they "can't take the heat" for whatever reason.

I think it's sometimes a really tough call for a traditional Catholic. I'm thinking specifically of that man from South America who's routinely garbed in white, and who styles himself the "Bishop of Rome". Considering his appearance on the cover of The Advocate as their 2013 "Person of the Year", without any resultant protest from the Vatican, it seems overly charitable to describe him as "controversial".

Quote from: Matthew (Jun 24, 2015, 1:51 pm, continued)

What would you do if you had been born 2,000 years ago in the Holy Land?

In the case of the "bishop" I'm describing, no, it's highly likely that even upon his invitation, I'd not risk my civil future by carrying a sword

to escort him to a private session of prayer in the out-of-doors, nor, if armed men arrived to arrest him
, would dare I lop off one of their ears.

But it's no secret that the dates, not only of his consecration to the episcopacy, but also of his ordination to the priesthood, makes their validity questionable prima facie, so perhaps he's not the "bishop" alluded to in the original posting.

-------
Note *: Was it legal for the subjugated people of Judæa to carry a gladius during their homeland's occupation by Roman troops? Would it be legal for an adult to carry one in public for personal defense in any state in the U.S.A., or would a person need a concealed-carry permit?

Note #: Altho' being a head of state, diplomatic immunity would probably protect him in peacetime, except possibly from the U.N.

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2015, 03:40:57 PM »

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jun 27, 2015, 3:30 pm)

Quote from: Matthew (Jun 24, 2015, 1:51 pm)
I will grant that today there are a few priests who are "controversial" or "hot potatoes". One of them is even a bishop.

so perhaps he[... i.e.:] the "Bishop of Rome" [... is] not the "bishop" alluded to in the original posting.

By contrast, I'd consider it a great honor to meet Bishop Williamson, who's endured Orwellian prosecution--for thoughtcrime!--and religious persecution for holding to the traditional principles of Archbishop LeFebvre, in resistance to modernist usurpers within the society in which he was once (in some sense) the senior bishop.

And also by contrast, there can be no credible doubt about the validity of his consecration

.

Is there any chance that his 2015 visit to Jacksonville (old Duval Co.) will have him passing through, and making a stop, in central Florida within a reasonable commute from Orlando (Orange Co.)? Alas, I suspect that he might now be persona non grata in Sanford (Seminole Co.). It's ironic that 'twas Bp. Williamson who consecrated the St. Thomas More Church at the SSPX priory in Sanford (or so I believe I was told within the past year).

-------
Note *: Delving into the technical effect of the reported papal prohibition-in-advance requires not only a depth of knowledge of canon law that I certainly don't possess, but also resolution of any debate over the compilation that should apply, whether the last traditional compilation (1917?), or the current Novus Ordo compilation (1983?).