Conversation with Fr. James Gordon, FSSP, about Vatican II

[Spencer]

Are we allowed to talk about Baptism of desire?

[Someone1776]

Are we allowed to talk about Baptism of desire?

Yes.

Sedevecantism can only be discussed in the cornfield.

[Tapatio]

We're also not allowed to talk about sedevecantism on the main forum.

Then why start this thread about a conversation with a priest on sedevacantist's youtube channel?
Any logical thinking person will want to go to the root of the problem.
First, you can't tell me about the video, then I am not allowed to talk about the poster because he is a sede.
What gives?

[Berber]

First, I would like to commend Fr. Gordon for his excellent performance in a debate he was not even prepared for. He also showed great charity in  remaining on the telephone that long with someone who routinely shows a lack of courtesy in not identifying himself and not scheduling discussions ahead of time.

Regarding the baptism of desire issue, it would appear as if Bro. Peter trapped Fr. Gordon at the end I, but I thought of a reply that the latter could have offered.

Bro. P. got Fr. G. to grant that outside the Church there is no salvation. Then, Bro. P. got Fr. G. to grant that unbaptized catechumens are outside of the Church. Then Bro. P. tried to force Fr. G. into the logical conclusion that, therefore, unbaptized catechumens cannot attain salvation.

Fr. G. could have replied that the effects of the unbaptized catechumen's desire for baptism would only be supplied by God at the moment of the UC's death. Therefore, the UC's desire for baptism would not be sufficient to make the him a member of the Church during his life, and water baptism would still be necessary; however, if he is prevented from receiving water baptism by an unforeseen death, at death he would be made a member of the Church by baptism of desire and therefore the dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation is preserved.   

[Someone1776]

We're also not allowed to talk about sedevecantism on the main forum.

Then why start this thread about a conversation with a priest on sedevacantist's youtube channel?
Any logical thinking person will want to go to the root of the problem.
First, you can't tell me about the video, then I am not allowed to talk about the poster because he is a sede.
What gives?

I didn't start this thread.  The problem with sedevacantism is if we allow this discussion on the main forum than every thread gets derailed over a debate whether the Pope is the Pope. 

It is also unfair to critique sedevecantism on the main forum as the sedes can't respond at all without getting banned. 

[Caeli24]

If that is a private phone conversation that was taped without Father Gordon's permission it should not have been made public. 

I just called Fr. Gordon to tell him about this video. He said that him and "Br. Peter" have been back and forth about a lot of issues and that this video was likely a copy and paste of different conversations they've had. Anyway, Fr. Gordon is a really great priest!

[Jackson K. Eskew]

He said that him and "Br. Peter" have been back and forth about a lot of issues and that this video was likely a copy and paste of different conversations they've had.

That's my impression.

[Spencer]

First, I would like to commend Fr. Gordon for his excellent performance in a debate he was not even prepared for. He also showed great charity in  remaining on the telephone that long with someone who routinely shows a lack of courtesy in not identifying himself and not scheduling discussions ahead of time.

I totally agree with the above statement.

Regarding the baptism of desire issue, it would appear as if Bro. Peter trapped Fr. Gordon at the end I, but I thought of a reply that the latter could have offered.

Bro. P. got Fr. G. to grant that outside the Church there is no salvation. Then, Bro. P. got Fr. G. to grant that unbaptized catechumens are outside of the Church. Then Bro. P. tried to force Fr. G. into the logical conclusion that, therefore, unbaptized catechumens cannot attain salvation.

Fr. G. could have replied that the effects of the unbaptized catechumen's desire for baptism would only be supplied by God at the moment of the UC's death. Therefore, the UC's desire for baptism would not be sufficient to make the him a member of the Church during his life, and water baptism would still be necessary; however, if he is prevented from receiving water baptism by an unforeseen death, at death he would be made a member of the Church by baptism of desire and therefore the dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation is preserved.   

Your conclusion here is illogical. I have never heard such nonsense as "the effects of the... desire for baptism" given "at the moment of" death.
Then you say "Therefore, the UC's desire for baptism would not be sufficient to make the him a member of the Church during his life, and water baptism would still be necessary". Immediately following this statement you contradict yourself by saying "he would be made a member of the Church by baptism of desire".

[Berber]

Your conclusion here is illogical. I have never heard such nonsense as "the effects of the... desire for baptism" given "at the moment of" death.
Then you say "Therefore, the UC's desire for baptism would not be sufficient to make the him a member of the Church during his life, and water baptism would still be necessary". Immediately following this statement you contradict yourself by saying "he would be made a member of the Church by baptism of desire".

Provided that you believe in baptism of desire, there is nothing illogical about my argument. As long as the UC is living, water baptism would still be necessary to make him a member of the Church. However, if the UC is prevented from receiving water baptism in accordance with his desire by death, then the effects of baptism would be provided at the moment of his death. Before the moment of death, the effects of baptism would not be provided by his desire because if this were the case then he would not need to follow through on his desire with water baptism. 

[Tim]

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.

 Forgive me but it is stupid to go over this again, again and again. Unless you are trying to convert good Catholics to sedevacantism

tim