Saturday, May 20, 2017


...ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitirum... ("he strives to transform all rites as he pleases"). Ammianus Marcellinus

Were we to tag this post, we'd classify it as a reminder — a reminder of the cult masters' infidelity to their own well-publicized principles. Long-time followers of PL will recall the Readers tackled the same subject in their June 13, 2015, post "COUNTERFEIT CATHOLICISM 3," where we observed, writing about Dannie and Checkie, "In hypocrisy-infected Tradistan, you can't expect the malformed cult masters to practice what they preach!" 

Today we'll scrutinize identical double standards practiced by Tradistan's "Superior General" of the recently announced lost-boys' club, the achingly pathetic "Roman Catholic Institute." In his cover letter to his announcement, Tradzilla grandiloquently wrote (our emphases):       
In the following pages you will find our three Directories. We want the lay people to see what we stand for, and invite them to adopt these very same principles in this great and life-long struggle we have all undertaken for the integrity of Catholic dogma, Catholic moral doctrine, Catholic liturgy, and Catholic discipline. 
O.K. We kind of think we get it. Hmmmm. Let's see: Tradzilla hopes moneyed laity'll understand his thinking and make his beliefs and practices theirs. Isn't that about right? (Nice fundraising ploy, we'll have to admit: Get 'em to buy in now so they'll pay through the nose later.) Let's then conduct a sincerity test on Big Don and his pals.  For the sake of brevity, the Readers will look at one principle he'd like us all to embrace, that of the first article 1* of the "Liturgical Directory":       
The general liturgical principle of the Institute is to preserve the traditional Roman liturgy. The Institute holds that the changes which were made to the Roman liturgy by the Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy, founded by Pope Pius XII in 1948, and headed by Annibale Bugnini, were transitory changes which were made in view of the Novus Ordo Missæ of 1969. Consequently the Institute shall reject any changes made at the suggestion of the aforesaid commission, even if promulgated by Pope Pius XII. The Institute holds that, although these changes were duly promulgated by Pope Pius XII, the acceptance of them in the light of the changes of Vatican II would be harmful to the stated end, namely the preservation of the traditional Roman liturgy. Nonetheless, the Institute does not regard the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII as sinful to observe or attend, or as non-Catholic, but does regard them as a prelude to the ultimate changes of Vatican II, to which their author, Annible [sic!!] Bugnini, attests. 
In trying to make sense of all this head-spinning double talk, we concluded that Big Don and his "Institute" want the laity to have nothing to do with any of the poisoned fruits of the Bugnini reform of the liturgy, especially those mandated by the Second Vatican Council. Seems reasonable, doesn't it, given his radical sede position?

Nothing too tough to understand thus far.

So, then, if we've read between the Donster's lines correctly, the founders of the "Institute" must all be assumed to be model practitioners of the very principles they urge the laity to adopt.

Are we wrong? (No, we're not.)

But if the founders are paragons of Roman liturgical purity, why do we find on the MHT schedule for May 14, 2017, the calendar entry printed below?

Pontifical Sung Mass with Chaplains 10:30 A.M. C Bishop Sanborn C1 Rev. Mr. Dutertre C2 Fr. Fliess

This is clearly not a "Solemn Pontifical High Mass," as we see on May 25. It's looks and quacks like a Missa cantata, or Sung Mass, for a bishop. Now as many of you may know, a Sung Mass for bishops is an innovation sanctioned by Inter Oecumenici, the "First Instruction for the orderly carrying out of [Vatican II's] Constitution on the Liturgy," dated September 26, 1964 (bold emphasis ours):
 II.I.48.l, It is lawful, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests. (Licet Episcopis, pro necessitate, Missam in cantu more presbyterorum celebrare [AAS 56 {1964}, p. 888]).    
A colleague recollects that after Big Don first got his miter, he once said, during a visit to a cult chapel, that a bishop could only celebrate low or solemn pontifical Masses and smirkingly refused to use Dannie's invented pontifical Missa cantata. (The Wee One himself confessed it was all made up.) It may also be worth remembering that Tony Baloney, in his error-filled Work of Human Hands (p. 76), disapproved of the "fairly extensive" changes introduced by the "First Instruction." In his opinion, it "introduced many practices throughout the Mass that the 1951-62 legislation had already allowed or prescribed in one way or another, and instituted some new practices as well."

As matters stand, unless Inter Oecumenici is (a) unconnected with Bugnini's liturgical-reform efforts and (b) not one of the "ultimate changes of Vatican II,"** we'd like to know why three founders of the "Institute," to wit, Big Don, Squirmin' Herman, and the Gallic Melancholic (1) chose not to "preserve the traditional Roman liturgy" and (2) celebrated Mass in accordance with the "changes of Vatican II." In other words, is this the kind of double-tongued "integrity" we're all supposed to be fighting for along with Big Don and his clown crew?

Could it be that Tradzilla's two-faced policy is "do as I say, don't do as I do (because I do what I want)"? Or is it more subtle, say, "Whatever I do is right whenever I choose to do it, and don't you dare bring up my self-contradictions"? Or is it as basic as "I'm a flighty hypocrite who likes to do as his whims dictate"?

Choose whichever you think describes the Donster's motives best. Better yet, come up with your own catchphrase. Anything will work as long as it explains why Tradzilla flagrantly violates the principles he and the other founders "stand for."

That way, we'll all be reminded to


* For a reason we cannot fathom, in the pdf we downloaded, the "Liturgical Directory," apparently part of the "constitutions" Big Don claimed he's "been working on ... since 2004" (pesthouse news letter, May 2016, p. 2), has two — that's two— articles enumerated "1"! When we last checked pp. 6 and 7 of the online version [May 20, 2017, 11:24 AM, Ed.], the two #1's were still there as well as the misspelling of Bugnini's first name in the last sentence of the first #on p. 6. Maybe he'll correct both errors after he reads this post, as $GG did last week with the month of "YAG." This time, however, we've got a hard copy as well as a pdf in case the cult wants to play another fast one on PL with a straw commenter.

**But that condition cannot be true because Tony Baloney tells us (1) on p. 76 that "Consilium... issued ... the Instruction Inter Oecumenici" and (2) on p. 73 that "On 3 January 1964 ... Bugnini was ... informed that ... Montini ... had appointed him as Secretary of a new commission: 'Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de sacra liturgia.'" Then on p. 75, Checkie says, "As Secretary of Consilium, Bugnini was once again in the driver's seat for directing the course of liturgical reforms." (Citations from the 1st edition of Cheesy's dreadful book. If you don't trust the Cheeseball's facts, and we don't blame you, you can verify Bugnini's Consilium ["council"] appointment here.) At MHT, Bonehead Tone's shoddy Work of Human Hands is listed as one of the textbooks for the "seminary" course on the modern liturgy. Haven't Big Don, Squirmy, and the Gallic Melancholic read that magnum opus, as Dannie called it? "Consilium" is listed in the course description as one of the topics to be covered. It seems MHT has as little regard for WHH's content as PL has.