Author Topic: Would you rather avoid controversial priests? (Read 3083 times)

Matthew · « **on:** June 24, 2015, 12:51:15 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. They ask them to leave their homes and not come back, etc.

Some even say things like, "I like you, I respect what you are doing -- but you're too "hot" for me. Please leave my house and never come back."

I would only have one thing to add:

What would you do if you had been born 2,000 years ago in the Holy Land? Would you have been one of Christ's disciples? Would you have been there next to St. John and the Blessed Mother during the Crucifixion?

Yeah right.

If you can't take the heat from the media, the puny neo-SSPX, etc. and stand by good prelates like Bishop Williamson today (as well as those priests he works with), what makes you think you would stand by an even more controversial figure back then?

Such people would have been the first to cave to Jєωιѕн pressure. Heck, they might have been in the crowd that called for Barabbas!

Don't kid yourself.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1 on:** June 24, 2015, 07:57:18 PM »

Could you give an example? I am under the opinion that 95% of priests who reject Vatican 2 and the novus ordo, and who are brave enough to live "outside of Rome" are legit and we are lucky to have them (in the face of the general "peanut gallery" of uneducated catholics, who believe that "current rome" = "Eternal Rome"). This is regardless of a sedevecantist belief or not.

Obviously, there are always exceptions to the rule, if a priest is untrustworthy or behaves scandalously, etc. But, for the most part, as long as the priest is not looking for a "deal" with Rome, I'm lucky to attend his mass.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #2 on:** June 24, 2015, 08:27:34 PM »

Matthew:

Quote

If you can't take the heat from the media, the puny neo-SSPX, etc. and stand by good prelates like Bishop Williamson today (as well as those priests he works with), what makes you think you would stand by an even more controversial figure back then?

Such people would have been the first to cave to Jєωιѕн pressure. Heck, they might have been in the crowd that called for Barabbas!

A fair question.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #3 on:** June 24, 2015, 10:02:40 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Could you give an example?

He's referring to people who support the priests and bishop who've left or been expelled from the SSPX in theory, but when the opportunity comes to assist at their Mass, they don't want to be involved in anything controversial. Some simply won't show up, others will come, but stay far away from the cleric so as not to be caught in any photographs.

... in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt [dodge a photo opp with me] thrice.

Joking aside, I don't think it's that much of a parallel as many of those who act like this are simply not informed or principled enough to care much one way or the other about the issues which caused these priests and bishop to be separated from the SSPX.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** June 24, 2015, 10:05:36 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Joking aside, I don't think it's that much of a parallel as many of those who act like this are simply not informed or principled enough to care much one way or the other about the issues which caused these priests and bishop to be separated from the SSPX.

As always, you're being too nice :)

Regardless of niceness or weakness, the results are the same.

Why do you think those who avoided Our Lord did so? pure satanic malice? No, it was often weakness. Just like the people we're talking about.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2015, 07:14:13 AM »

The only traditional priests I avoid are:

1. Those who make it clear that they will deny communion to Catholics for spurious reasons (e.g., Some SSPV priests deny communion to Catholics who usually attend a Thuc-line priest) and priests who claim to be the last bastion of Catholicism (i.e., cults).

2. Those who will not tell questioners who ordained them.

3. Those who were not ordained in the traditional rite by a bishop whose lineage does not include a Novus Ordo consecration, i.e., the priest must be clearly validly ordained.

4. Priests in "full communion" with Modernist Rome. I know that "full communion" is a ridiculous term, but I don't know how else to describe the Recognize and Resist folks who are not in "full communion" as they claim to be in communion with Rome while, at the same time, they reserve the right to disregard Rome any time they decide Rome is wrong about something or other. Thus, I will not reject a priest who says the so-called "una cuм Mass" but I don't understand them.

5. Priests who preach clear heresy that any person familiar with the Baltimore Catechism No. 1 should know is heresy. Obviously, this is something that I wouldn't know until after the fact and would avoid the priest in the future.

Frankly, I haven't found a reason to avoid any particular traditional priest when traveling and don't consider that I am avoiding a priest when I have multiple options at a particular location and choose one over another.

It seems to me that my criteria specifically requires me to attend "controversial" priests.

Cera · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2015, 01:18:42 PM »

If people in Jesus' time avoided controversial people. . .

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2015, 04:24:45 AM »

Would you rather avoid controversial priests?

For me that would depend on why they are controversial.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2015, 05:46:25 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

4. Priests in "full communion" with Modernist Rome. I know that "full communion" is a ridiculous term, but I don't know how else to describe the Recognize and Resist folks who are not in "full communion" as they claim to be in communion with Rome while, at the same time, they reserve the right to disregard Rome any time they decide Rome is wrong about something or other. Thus, I will not reject a priest who says the so-called "una cuм Mass" but I don't understand them.

"This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer "- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
Source

Matthew, I think most of the people who avoid Resistance priests can be likened to the parable of those who were invited to the wedding feast, though fear of being "found out" by SSPX is probably inherent in the excuses.

AJNC · « **Reply #9 on:** June 26, 2015, 09:39:57 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

.........

Some people have washed their hands of these priests; they "can't take the heat" for whatever reason. They ask them to leave their homes and not come back, etc.

.........

What if the priest is controversial because of his spending habits?

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?).