Last week's post stirred up a lively exchange both in the comments section and by e-mail. Most e-mail correspondents (undoubtedly mouth-breathing SGG illiterati) snottily -- and unnecessarily -- reminded us that anything we post about the validity of a simple priest as extraordinary minister of holy orders would be merely a matter of opinion. (N.B. They wrote this in spite of what canon 951 teaches! Perhaps their ignorant clergy-instigators are unaware of its contents.)
Long-time followers of this blog can testify that, of all people, we Readers are aware of the shortcomings of opinion alone, even opinions delivered by recognized authorities. As everybody knows (except cult-maddened freaks), Catholics cannot accept the validity of a sacrament solely on the basis of an opinion, no matter how intelligently proposed.
And while we Readers know that the idea of an ordaining-priest is more than mere opinion*, we argue in reply to the rabid CLODs ("close loyalists of Dannie") that, just as no right-thinking traditional Catholic can safely accept as a valid priest a man ordained by a simple priest (since the cultists insist it's merely an opinion that a priest can be the extraordinary minister of holy orders), so, too, no traditional Catholic, in light of Pius XII's 1947 Sacramentum Ordinis, can safely accept as a valid priest a man ordained with only one hand.
As we pointed out in our definitive refutation and rebuttal of Cekada's error-filled and unscholarly defense of one-handed orders, the Church has never decided the question of one-handed orders. All we have are a few stray opinions to support the validity of such a defective ordination. However, we do know for certain that where there is a question concerning the validity of a sacrament, Catholics must choose the safer path.
Accordingly, just as we know that bishops provide the certain means for securing valid priestly orders, so, too, we know that re-ordination sub conditione provides the certain means of curing the defect of priestly orders conferred with one hand.
In light of all the corroborating testimony we've marshaled about Dannie's one-handed priestly ordination, it should be easy for the same savagely vocal cultists who e-mailed us last week to persuade His Deficiency to beg Big Don Sanborn to cure his doubtful priestly and episcopal orders. Wee Dan, in turn, can then fix all those men he's "ordained" and thereby put the minds of the faithful at rest.
The collapsing SGG-Brooksville cabal has to confront a hard conclusion and then act upon it: A "priest" ordained by a "bishop" whose priestly orders were defectively conferred with one hand must necessarily be more doubtful than a priest ordained by a simple, yet validly ordained priest. Why? Because (1) the notion of an ordaining-priest is much more than a mere opinion (it's even enshrined in canon law); and (2) sound theologians teach that one must be a valid priest before becoming a bishop. So if a "bishop's" priestly orders are in doubt, then his episcopal orders are necessarily so. As a result, for practical purposes, the faithful must consider all ordinations performed by such a "bishop" to be null and void. Therefore, traditional Catholics must avoid sacraments confected by the men he's "ordained."
It's now almost assured that something very wrong happened to one luckless, despised ordinand on June 29 in what's been hauntingly called l'été chaud de 1976. For the sake of innocent souls, the defect must be cured. The arrogant, ignorant, self-admiring clergy won't do a thing. It's up to the laity. Tell Dannie to get himself fixed -- in both his priestly and his episcopal orders -- or there'll be no more money.
Yes, His Defectiveness won't like it, and neither will loud-mouth Big Don. But what's more important? Li'l Dan's feelings or your immortal soul?
* Last week's challenge is particularly aimed at solving the question of jurisdiction, i.e., getting around the issue of that pesky apostolic indult. If that can be settled -- and we're confident that imaginative Traddies can do it -- then the possibilities are limitless for rescue from the ravenous sede "bishops" of Tradistan and its environs. That pack of wolves has to be disbanded before more Catholics are hurt and impoverished.
What "corroborating testimony" of a one handed ordination? Please publish the name and signed sworn declaration of ONE such witness online---as you did with the letter of the nine priests from 1990.
ReplyDeleteA blog called "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" really tore you apart in several posts, especially the one earlier this year called "The Burden of Proof. Introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
That blog is ridiculous. It declared victory in the face of defeat. That fool accomplished nothing, and he knows it.
DeleteWe have the letter of the nine priests. We have an email from a witness declaring that it happened. And we now have the testimony of an SSPX priest.
Everybody knows Dannie was ordained with one hand.
If "everybody knows" he was ordained with one hand, please share the testimony of the witness and the priest. Please also explain how their memories can't be impeached according to the same principles you laid down against the witness of Dolan. This would prove your case.
DeleteWe've already shared the testimony and explained in a recent post how the recollection of the affiant you reference could be reconciled with the fact that on June 29, 1976, the archbishop unwittingly made a mistake with only ONE of the ordinandi. (See http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2015/06/anniversary-special.html)
DeleteSince there's doubt & rancor because of it, why doesn't he simply go thro the ceremony again & be done with it - even if he feels it's not necessary. This would shut everyone up & show his good will. What's the big deal? This bickering is unseemly for Catholic men.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the sensible solution, and it's one he should have invoked at his "consecration" years ago. Then and there he could have silenced everyone, including his arch-nemesis in the SSPV. It would have been regarded as a act of self-effacement for the good of all Catholics. Moreover, it could have taken place the day before in a much less formal manner than the ensuing "big show."
DeleteBut then he thought Cheeseball Checkie had delivered him, so he foolishly did not follow the pars tutior.
Such a prudential act would have done much more than silence noisy critics: it would have diminished the anxiety of the faithful about the validity of his orders and those of the men he "ordained."
As a aside, we should note that we have heard many more accounts from priests about widespread knowledge of a one-handed ordination for just one of the candidates on June 29, 1976. That knowledge extended to many, many people. What happened was they believed Checkie's flawed research that one-handed conferral was valid, so they didn't think the defect mattered.
But now that the Blunderer has been refuted and rebutted (and his perverse translation of Pius XII's infallible teaching exposed), the 1976 incident is viewed altogether in a new light.
Just to show you our good intentions, we'll be magnanimous. We'll grant that back in the '90s a lot of the clergy believed that Checkie's "discovery" was true, so maybe Dannie was justified through ignorance not to seek conditional priestly orders. But after we exposed all the errors of Checkie's work in our effort to save the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke from a lifetime doubt, there is no excuse for not seeking re-ordination and re-consecration.
Actually, on second thought, he should have undergone the remedy well before our series began. He should have done so after we had earlier exposed the perversity of Checkie's translation of papal teaching, since so much of Checkie's argument depends on his false translation.
Be that as it may, there is no excuse now that we've publish our "Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand," available on this blogspot.
I read your post referenced above. Problem: You never state the name of this alleged SSPX priest-witness nor do you publish his sworn declaration as you published the letter of the nine.
DeleteFurther, you had prior claimed to have witnesses (plural) and now just an email (!) from one such witness. This alleged priest witness comes on the heels of the blog Introibo Ad Altare Dei showing you did not carry your burden of proof. Coincidence? Please publish the NAME of the priest AND his sworn declaration along with those of any/all other such witnesses.
He won't go through another ordination because all the theologians who write on the subject say there's no problem with one-handed ordination. Bp. Dolan has to follow the safer course in the administration of the Sacraments, and it's a safer course to follow the opinion of the theologians than to follow the opinion of an ignorant man with a blog.
DeleteYou should read our "Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand" available at the top of this page. Checkie cited only a handful of theologians who approved of one-handed orders, and we've cast serious doubts on their opinions. Furthermore, Regatillo's opinion is based on hearsay evidence, and there's no certainty that the bishop he cited sought the HO's advice after 1947, the watershed year.
DeleteSince the Church has never decided the question, and since we've rebutted and refuted Checkie's sloppy and erroneous defense, the safer course is conditional re-ordination, especially in view of the fact that so much of Checkie's argument depends on his perverse translation of Pius XII's infallible teaching.
None of that is necessary. The letter of the 9 priests was sufficient motivation for Dannie to have taken the pars tutior, and that 1990 letter, along with all the other confirmations we have, is sufficient for us to appeal to Dannie to get fixed. You're free not to join us in our petition.
ReplyDeleteWe -- or others whom we trust -- know the identities of the informants and their bona fides. The absence of signed statements is no warrant that the one, BIG mistake of June 29, 1976, did not occur. That "burden of proof" meme is a canard.
Everybody -- and we mean e-v-e-r-y-B-O-D-Y -- who counts in this matter knows what happened: the archbishop made a mistake, and was wrongfully persuaded not to remedy it.
Since Checkie's defense of the validity of one-handed conferral has been demolished, the ball's now in "One Hand's" court to clean up the archbishop's mess.
The solution is so very simple. Call Big Don and schedule a public re-ordination and re-consecration.He could start a Go Fund Me account to pay for the expenses.
The burden of proof is no canard--it's Church Law that whenever a properly trained Catholic minister of the Sacrament (Lefebvre) undertakes to confect said Sacrament, there is a presumption that everything was done according to the rubrics and is valid. The person claiming a defect has to overcome the presumption with evidence. What evidence do you have? None. Nameless witnesses and now a nameless priest witness based on your say-so. We have no proof they even exist. Why wouldn't an SSPX priest want to come forward against a sede Bishop? It would score brownie points with Fellay!
DeleteOne thing IS evident---you're a bunch of liars. Calumny is a serious sin. God pity you.
And the letter of the nine is equally useless. They were not there and don't even claim witnesses. It's speculation based neither on first hand knowledge nor named witnesses,
DeleteComplete hogwash. We have the testimony of priests. You may not have proof they exist, but we do, and that's enough for us.
DeletePriests don't want their names sullied in all this sede mess, and we along with others respect their wishes to remain out of the cesspool. You have no idea what else we know but won't disclose because it might reveal the source. They are not afraid, but they don't want anything to do in public with scummy Tradistan. Many of these men have worked hard to disassociate themselves from all the seediness and hypocrisy.
It's evident that you are in denial. Let's just say that the everyone really involved in this issue knows we're telling the truth. Calling us liars won't make us so.
Allow me, Reader, to add here that the SSPX has no fear of sede bishops, and they certainly do not regard these pitiful amateurs as threats or rivals. They and the FSSP are only concerned when they have to go in and clean up after the sedes have made a mess of things for traditional Catholics.
DeleteTradistanis are insignificant. They're casting pebbles at a granite mountain. All their efforts against the SSPX are merely aimed at keeping their own restless cult followers from leaving them. The society never needs to stoop to reply to these malformed nothings, who lie far beneath contempt.
Wait until the SSPX joins Bergoglio in fact and not just in lip service! Let's not forget the same SSPX produced Dolan, Sanborn, Cekada, all of the founders of the SSPV and Juan Fernandez Krohn!
DeleteIf they are MORAL, they would want to point out the defect just like the SSPV priests, right? A lofty desire to "not sully yourself" does nothing to absolve the moral obligation to make what they know public. If they won't, their credulity is zilch. Which leads me to conclude either the priest is a scumbag who won't disclose something vital to the salvation of souls or he simply does not exist.
DeleteAll very true. However, nothing Sanborn, Cekada, or Dolan writes bothers the SSPX one bit, and all their efforts have no effect against the society. These sede oddballs are of no significance whatsoever, and if the Restoration were to come tomorrow, not one of these men would have a role to play in the restored Church.
DeleteTo Anon. 7/12 7:54
DeleteYour conclusions are unwarranted and ill-premised.
To the normal world, including many sane traditional Catholics, the Tradistani trash are aliens. It makes common sense to leave these religious outcasts and their nutty followers to their own devices. Just as good Catholics aren't obliged to intervene in the affairs of off-the-wall evangelical or pentecostal sects, the SSPX has no moral imperative to come out and save the sede sectarians from themselves and their awful leaders.
We think the testimony came forward in the same spirit whereby a disinterested Catholic party might reveal something unseemly he might have witnessed about one of those wild televangelists: an anecdote to confirm the illegitimacy of a crazy, unsavory sect.
Your analogy is flawed. Pointing out what's wrong in a Protestant sect will not have them entering the Catholic Church in droves. However, those who follow Dolan, if they believe his orders might be defective WOULD seek out SSPX or FSSP (at least a good number). Hence, the imperative to divulge the information to those who think they're receiving Catholic sacraments---and according to this blog---might not be so doing.
DeleteWe're afraid you're wrong.
DeleteThe SSPX et al. understand the cult-crazed followers of Dolan. They know these low-class rite -trash will follow Dannie and Donnie no matter what. This scum of the earth won't seek out the SSPX or the FSSP.
The few rational people there will find the FSSP or the SSPX or another trad group on their own. The SSPX knows these folks have the inner light to find their way out of the mess, so why bother with overt prosletyzing?
All the SSPX and FSSP have to do is to wait for the situation to get so bad that the few intelligent people remaining will leave.
That time has come. SGG is dying for lack of funds. Big Don;s hurting, too. Dannie is beside himself with frantic appeals for cash. Haven't you seen the latest begging letter? We're sure you have, since you're obviously a cultist.
Why try to save Dannie's cult with a warning when silence will drive the right people to your pews?
It's the smart thing to do.
To anonymous 7/12/2015 4:58 pm, the writer of this blog has never been anything more than smoke and mirrors. He pretends this blog is the work of an extensive network of people spanning multiple continents, when in reality it's just one disgruntled old man. Why else do you think he refuses to reveal his identity? If he gave us a list of his supposed "continental colleagues", anyone could check and see that it's a hoax.
DeleteThe same is true for these imaginary witnesses. People have been asking for years for him to give some proof they exist, and he's never given the slightest shred of proof. It's just more smoke and mirrors. I think most people learn not to believe everything a stranger tells them by the time they're about 5 years old, but this guy fires up his computer on Saturday morning and tells us he got some secret email from some secret person that proves his position in a controverted question, and expects us to swallow it whole.
Lastly, he's always going on about how many wonderful, prayerful, saintly priests there are out there who hate Bp. Dolan and do everything else right too, and he's constantly telling everyone to go to these priests' Masses instead. Yet despite being questioned repeatedly for a list of his recommended chapels and clergy, we've never gotten a single name.
Welcome to the Pistrina blog! What I described is what you can expect here. It's all we've ever gotten, and all we're ever *going* to get. :)
You are wrong on every count, and everything WE write about is factual. The email is not "secret." We've told everyone of it's existence and have revealed its contents. We haven't divulged the author's name because it is not relevant to the discussion. We haven't revealed the name of the SSPX priest for the same reason. Not disclosing the name does in no way alter the existence of the reports or the truthfulness of their accounts. People really "in the know" realize this.
DeletePistrina will continue to give everyone the facts. It's your right to deny them. But just remember, your denial does not make these facts disappear.
To anon. Julyb12, 7:54 PM: For a priest to be reticent about publicly affirming Dannie’s one-handed ordination does NOT make him a “scumbag,” nor is the revealing (or NOT revealing) of such “something vital to the salvation of souls.” With OR without this priest’s testimony, there is enough DOUBT existing about Dannie’s one-handed ordination, that he should get himself “fixed” – and THAT IS “something vital to the salvation of souls” (especially DANNIE’S SOUL).
ReplyDeleteThat priest’s reticence does not make him a scumbag; but what DOES make one a scumbag is TO REGARD THE WATCHING OF PORN AS “BOYS WILL BE BOYS,” or TO JUSTIFY THE STARVING AND DEHYDRATING TO DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO – or any of the other scores of examples of morally reprehensible behavior by Dannie. If you want to label someone a scumbag, DANNIE is your man.
Actually, it would be better for Dannie if he definitely were NOT a priest, since he wouldn’t be held to a higher standard, as real priests are. So, if Dannie ever decides to get conditionally ordained, the first order of business for him is PUBLIC PENENCE. But we all know this won’t happen, because of his monumental pride and arrogance. And, oh, by the way, anon., you too are a scumbag, for trying to defend a PROVEN reprobate such as Dannie.
I'm defending his orders not necessarily his conduct, comprende usted? A scumbag is a LIAR about a clerics orders! I read the post that was written about above--"Introibo Ad Altare Dei" ---boy did he kick your A**!! I wish I knew who he was and where he practices law. If he's half as good in the courtroom as he is on the Internet, he'd be the guy I retain!!
DeleteYeah, I know what you mean. He ran circles around this blog about a year ago, I think, or a bit more. He's a smart chap, but I get the sense he didn't get the opportunity to show his full ability when he refuted that nonsense about one-handed ordination, because it wasn't that much of a challenge.
DeleteAs said above (and repeatedly, to the point of weariness for us all), if we don't even have any witnesses that the one-handed ordination ever even happened at all, then there's really nothing to discuss anyway.
And before the idiot author of this blog starts slobbering about some email he got that he won't show anybody, I will say that WE as in HIS AUDIENCE have no evidence of ANYTHING until WE see something, i.e., have a REAL PERSON'S NAME who will vouch for this story. The TALL STORY of a STRANGER who won't even PUBLISH HIS OWN NAME who CLAIMS he got an email from SOMEBODY, LIKEWISE UNVERIFIABLE, doesn't amount to an argument in any conversation between educated, rational human beings.
It's sad that this author can quote French and Italian and Arabic, but he can't understand what any child could explain to him, that just because he makes an assertion on his blog isn't any reason for people to believe him, unless he offers proof that they can verify.
First of all, "Introibo" refuted no one and failed. Everyone of his points was countered. And it still remains that there are real witnesses to the one-handed ordination of July 29, 1976. You can't make that fact disappear by denying it.
DeleteAs Introibo pointed out, you have to prove its a fact first! As the writer above explains, secret communications mean nothing to your audience so why bother with the blog. I have a secret email from a witness saying you're gay, and that's good enough for me! Scary, the way you "think."
DeleteThe public letter of the nine priests is sufficient that the event was probable. Everything else is merely confirmatory. Not all nine were operating under duress or imperfect knowledge.That probability alone should have motivated "One Hand" to seek conditional orders. Perhaps he didn't because he believed in Checkie's research, but after all the errors and perverse translation had been exposed, there is no reason to postpone re-ordination.
DeleteAgain, he pointed out to you that none of the nine priests were there. None of them claimed to have even one witness, and at least one was a mere child at the time if the ordination. Kelly and his crew were all angry with him for leaving, and this so-called one hand ordination didn't bother them from 1978-1990. They only did "research" after he left them! Fr. C WAS there and claimed everything was done correctly in the October 5, 1990 letter. So the letter if the nine is worthless.
DeletePut another way, if I had a letter signed by nine priests that you committed a crime, yet none of them witnessed the crime nor did they claim to have any witnesses to your crime---would you say that letter makes it probable that you are a criminal?
The nine priests knew from society history, multiple oral reports, and institutional memory what had happened. This story was being told in the late '70s. Because everyone believed that the archbishop could do no wrong, no one really thought much about it. However, others who were there have confirmed that the one-handed conferral took place.
DeleteAs to Checkie's account, we consider the source and his vested interests. After all, he's the guy so bent on defending one handed orders that he perversely mistranslated Pius XII. And, while we're on that subject, if everyone was so sure that no defect took place, then why the elaborate (but failed) defense of one-handed orders? Why not a full statement categorically denying that the defect occurred? Is it because at the time it would have been unprovable and would have risked an outcry?
"Institutional memory" "oral reports" and "society history." In other words you, and they, have NO EVIDENCE. The defense was "arguing in the alternative." Since you have no proof, Church law presumes it was done correctly with two hands. Period. Dolan does not carry any burden of proof under Church law
DeleteBut we do have eyewitness testimony, most recently from the SSPX priest who was there.
DeleteBTW, doesn't it bother you at all that Dannie did not demand that the 9 priests retract their assertion that he was ordained with one hand? All he demanded was they retract any statement or insinuation that his orders were invalid or dubious. We think Dannie knew something that you don't.
When everybody believed Checkie's unscholarly and erroneous "findings," none of the culties had a problem with the fact of the one-handed conferral. But ow that Cheesy's been refuted and rebutted, you're all agog with arguing that the defect never occurred. What a turn-about!
Amidst all this doubt and history, Dannie has the obligation to choose the safer course -- conditional ordination and consecration.
Terrific! You have the eyewitness testimony of an SSPX priest! Publish who he is and his declaration! Otherwise it doesn't exist. Remember, I have an eyewitness that you are a sodomite! (No name or declaration because he doesn't want to drag himself into all this stuff--you understand).
DeleteIt doesn't bother me one bit what Dolan did or did not do. YOU have the burden of proof not him.
The fact is, the SSPX priest and the other informant have names and do exist.
DeleteAlso, we're not trying to prove the 1976 defect happened. We're saying that in light of all the doubt, Dannie should seek conditional orders as is required by the Catholic law of pars tutior.
The burden is therefore on Dannie, especially because he himself chose to defend the validity of one-handed orders rather than formally counter the charge of the defect. (Perhaps that would not have been circumspect in the 1990s when memories were fresher, and the society thought the sedes were serious rivals.)
All your efforts are now too late. And you really should be bothered by Dannie's asking only for a retraction of the imputation of invalidity. As we said, we think he may know much, MUCH more than you about this whole nasty affair.
Of course! He knows it didn't happen as does Fr Cekada who was there in 1976. As has been pointed out by Introibo Ad Altare Dei and many others, if you won't publish names and declarations, they simply don't exist as far as the Church is concerned. Everything was done correctly and validly.
DeleteFinally, there can only be "doubt" if there is credible evidence that a defect in the rite occurred. Nameless, faceless "witnesses" are no witnesses at all.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Therefore, I will comment no further because you're a liar who will continue to pretend that witnesses exist. The definition of stupidity, is claiming that other people who are not privy to your so-called witnesses and information should believe you because you said so!
I'm not crazy so no more comments. You are a liar and stupid, so you will continue to expect people to follow you based on no proof. Secret proof is no proof.
My! My! Such vitriol! You brought back memories of the sandbox when low-class urchins were allowed to mingle with the offspring of the quality. Naturally, we have the same appreciation of you, but we were too polite to say so. Ah, yes, breeding will out, won't it?
DeleteAs far as the Church is concerned, these witnesses DO exist and their testimony is absolutely credible (overwhelmingly so, we add), and if a formal, ecclesiastical inquiry were to be convened, they would be called to give their evidence and thereby settle the matter for good.
That evidence, as a matter of fact, is not secret, and loads of people who count know it's it's as solid as a gold bond. You're just on the outside and don't count.
To Anonymous 7/14/2015 12:41 AM
DeleteI don't know if you were around when we went through all of this last time. It was about a year or two ago. As I recall, it was just myself and Introibo trying to explain to this man that he needs to provide documentation for his claim that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand, and even if he does manage to prove that, the consensus of the theologians, as Fr. Cekada demonstrated, is that there's no doubt about the validity of such an ordination even if it took place.
To the first point, Craig responded that he doesn't have to show any documentation. And to the second point, he said all those theologians are probably smart guys, sure, but they're all wrong on this question and he's right.
I admire you for trying to give this another try, but believe me it's a waste of time. Someone who says what I said in the last paragraph really can't discuss something on an intellectual level, and to try to debate anything with someone like that will make you end up like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ9wNT21c_s
Ultimately that's why I gave up trying to discuss it. Oh, and also because of this:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1368/987251565_22ea2338dd.jpg
But honestly, the bottom line for me ended up being this:
http://kokoshungsan.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14221837407296-87mvi.jpg
Best of luck, my friend!
We remind you (Lance? Buster Brown?) once again, that you have no idea what "consensus of theologians" means. We have documentation and that's sufficient for our purpose, which is to petition Dannie to get conditionally ordained and consecrated since that's the safer way. And BTW, our analysis showed all the weaknesses in the theologians' opinions.
DeleteAs we've always said, we don't know whether one-handed orders re valid or not. All we know is what is the pars tutior.
YOU have "documentation." YOUR AUDIENCE does NOT. Therefore, if YOU want to petition Dolan, go right ahead. However, you can't expect the people reading this blog to accept your say-so. As far as anybody else is concerned, unless you show the evidence, it does not exist.
DeleteIf I have evidence someone committed adultery, I can tell them to stop because it's wrong. But I can't expect his wife or anyone else to believe me unless I show the evidence!!!
Anonymous, 7/15/2015 9:06 PM, this is what I'm talking about. How can you discuss something with someone who doesn't believe he has to show any proof of the arguments he makes to support his position?
DeleteAnd did you notice what he said about how his "analysis" showed "all the weaknesses in the theologians' opinions." He thinks he's smarter than the theologians of the Church.
And then when his back is really to the wall he starts saying that he isn't trying to prove that Bp. Dolan was ordained with only one hand. Month after month we hear about how doubtful Bp. Dolan's orders are because he was ordained with one hand, and when this guy is refuted he says he isn't trying to prove that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand.
But welcome to the Pistrina Online Institution for the Theologically Insane! We have our best inmates running this asylum!
We never said we're smarter than the theologians Checkie quoted, but we're smart enough to spot their errors. For instance, we pointed out in reference to one theologian
Delete"Writing in defense of one-handed priestly ordination in 1958 — 11 years after the promulgation of Sacramentum Ordinis — De Jorio astonishingly affirmed “unius manus dexterae extensio habetur continuatio impositionis manuum,” (lit.) the extension of one right hand is held to be a continuation of the imposition of hands (case 341, vol. 2, p. 287, 2°). Now that is the opposite of what Pius XII actually taught. The pope... absolutely excluded from the matter of the sacrament the extension of the right hand. Accordingly, theologians can be wrong in both their opinions and in the facts they assert."
In other words, smart men can make mistakes, and men of less brilliance are still capable of catching the errors and thereby entitled to disqualify their voice in this matter.
And we again assert that our goal was not to prove Dannie was ordained with one hand. We merely brought out the testimony and argued that Dannie get fixed so as to follow the safer course. And we invite those who agree with us to join us in the petition.
You don't agree, and that's fine. You don't have to join our cause.
And BTW, you've never refuted us, but we've completely refuted and rebutted Checkie and we've exposed all his bad translations. When someone must stoop to distorting infallible papal teaching, you just know something's wrong with their case, and they know it.
And don't forget all the serious problems Cekada had with his translation of of DeJorio (including inserting his own mistranslation of Pius XII), as Pistrina pointed out here:
Deletehttp://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-capital-mistake.html
The only thing Cekada demonstrated was his ignorance, which has now been fortunately exposed to the world.
Speaking about confirmed things: I have it on good authority that Checkie administered(?) Confirmation back in the old days at SGG. They are already half way there to ordaining priests anyway, so whats the big deal?
ReplyDeleteWe've heard that several of the SSPX/SSPV American priests used to confirm in their early missions. They found a way to get around the restriction of receiving the faculty by law or by a grant from the pope. We think the same kind of creative thinking will overcome similar obstacles for ordaining priests.
DeleteThere's not only precedent in Sedelandia , as you so well observe, but also the faithful are ripe for change, which is always a great motivator in human history. The sede laity are sick to death of their feuding, malformed, hypocritical clergy.
The SW Ohio cult center, according to inside sources, is full of murmuring. Money is tight, and Dannie has to keep reminding his flock to pay, much to everyone's irritation. In yesterday's "Corner," he dropped a big hint that he was having trouble getting the "Fathers" food (i.e., meals catered by the cultlings).
If someone comes up with the right argument (and it shouldn't be too hard), then there will be some real competition, especially if the newly minted priests can set up shop in a church building of their own. (What keeps most people at the SW Ohio cult center is the illusion of being in a real church. If the supply of priests were opened up, the laity would be more willing to invest in buying and refurbishing an old church since they would easily be able to replace any priest who didn't work out or who got too greedy.)
All that's needed is for someone to make a plausible case for getting around the jurisdiction problem. With that solved, laymen who accepted the sede toilet-fish as priests and bishops should welcome with open arms this new group.
Indeed, if there's a careful vetting of candidates by choosing well-adjusted, university-educated men of good families and free from complexes, people will come running. And if the ordaining priests have never been associated with any of the Tradistani cults, the faithful will be even more willing to dump the cult masters. There are still a number of aged priests from the old days who might be persuaded to lay hands upon good candidates.
In response to the goof who did not believe the CMRI nuns who were taking part in New Age practices,they need to get their head out of the sand and get real.Doctor Thomas Drolesky confirmed this in his 2007 article about the nuns leaving.He and his wife were also told in private about the strange things going on at Mt St Michael.Its not false but true.Also young people are voting with their feet and leaving CMRI.
DeleteAnon July 15, 4:48AM - Could you kindly post the name of Dr. D's 2007 article concerning CMRI nuns. I went all thro the list of articles & couldn't find any that sounded like it would pertain to that. I'd very much like to read the article. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteChrist or Chaos website, then go to 2007 and click on "The Rest of the Story"
ReplyDeleteWe hope these people wake up to know that CMRI has been rotten for decades.Another family we know of had one of their sons at Omaha.He left in a short amount of time and has given his Faith away.He will not talk about his time there but it sounds bad.Yes,Pivarunas used to often go out at night.
DeleteI've seen plenty of young people leave the Faith (and older people too, it's not just young people), and just about every single one of them left because they didn't want to keep the sixth commandment. And generally they blame other people for their apostasy, because who's going to admit that they abandoned God because they didn't want to live a chaste life? The vast majority of these lost souls blamed either their parents, or the clergy and nuns who tried to form them, accusing them of whatever they could think of that they thought would stick. Who else are they going to blame?
DeleteI wouldn't take very seriously the word of someone who has abandoned God, when he speaks against a man of God. He's just trying to justify his own evil.
He woke up after seeing the hypocrisy like other former CMRI and SGG Faithful.There is nothing so blind that people will not see the truth.We are praying that all will wake up and have the scales removed from their eyes.
DeleteTo Anon. july 16 6:07 PM.
DeleteA clerical collar does not automatically make someone a man of God. Not everyone who has abandoned the faith has done so because they don't want to keep the commandments. They have been driven out by the un-Christian behavior of men in clericals and pontificals.
The Tradistani clergy count on the fact that their sheep's clothing will disguise the wolves they are.
As 7/16 7:26 says, the laity need to wake up and really see the "clergy" for the beasts they are.
Well said.We know a number of families who have sons that may have been called to the priesthood but have been driven out by the behavior of these "clergy" and for someone to say these men don't want to keep the commandments is low.Maybe,these men don't want to talk about their time at these"seminaries" and want to get on with making a better life for themselves.
DeleteYes,they are beasts and we are shocked at how a untrained man like Pivarunas has hoodwinked many.The truth will come out,just watch.
DeleteYes, indeed, he truth is coming out about all these terrible, low-standards "seminaries." Countless vocations have been lost because of all the bad behavior of the cult masters. Good men are kicked out or driven away while the dregs remain to become "priests." The situation is intolerable. Reform can only come by withholding the funds the keep these dreadful "diploma mills" in operation.
DeleteYou people contradict what I have read in numerous catechisms and spiritual books, namely that God never turns His back on a soul unless that soul turned his back on God first. If you are saying that a person can good and virtuous, and then lose his faith because he is scandalized by someone else, even a priest or nun, then you're saying that God abandoned that devout soul to evil when that person hadn't done anything wrong. This is radically contrary to Catholic teaching.
DeleteSo no, when someone leaves the Faith and says it's because they saw someone doing evil, don't believe it. They left because *they* wanted to do evil. They abandoned God. God didn't abandon them.
There's no contradiction.
DeleteThese organizations are NOT the Catholic faith: they're cults and sects with a quasi-Catholic veneer. Unfortunately, many people today who never knew the Faith as it was before Vatican II have been deluded by propaganda and lies into thinking these cults are the true Catholic Church. Thus, often when people reject the cults, they also mistakenly reject the Catholic Faith.
However, we believe with all our heart that since God gives people the grace to leave the the rotten cults, He'll also give them the grace to love the true Faith one day, once He assists them in recovering from the trauma they suffered at the hands of the cult masters.
Accordingly, when the faithful abandon these "bishops" and their cults, God stands firmly and lovingly at their side, giving them the courage to break free from the false prophets. He is the author of their leaving, and He will comfort them and guide them in the right direction. And to those who did not see His mighty hand in helping them escape the cult bondage, He will one day give the light to find the true Faith, even if that means staying home alone. Perhaps Divine Providence has bestowed on some of these people in their sense of alienation a kind of protection against falling too soon into the snares of another pseudo-Catholic cult waiting to prey on them. God will never give His children too much to bear, and so He supplies the means to persist.
I was actually speaking more to Anonymous 7/16, 5:41 AM, who spoke of a young man who went to Omaha and, as he said, "has given his Faith away."
DeleteTo The Reader, if you want to say that this person hasn't given his Faith away because the CMRI aren't members of the Catholic Church, that's a different position that we'd have to discuss separately. I'm curious if you think the CMRI are heretics or schismatics, and if so what dogma of the Faith they deny, but as I said that's beside the point.
Right now I will take this person's words at face value, that this young man has given his Faith away. I am very sorry to hear this has happened, but as I said, if a person gives his Faith away that is his own fault. No one can make anyone else give up their Faith. Just read about all the martyrs who shed their blood rather than do so. No one can take away the Faith or the love of God or sanctifying grace from another person. If someone gives up their Faith, it is only through their own grave fault, not anyone else's.
Our reply was by way of an amplifying comment to help you correctly understand what has actually happened when people speak of someone's having lost his Faith as a result of the un-Catholic horrors endured in one of the cults
DeleteLeaving any of these cult's is not, per se, giving away the faith, although leavers in their bitterness often say they are abandoning the Catholic Faith. But that's only because they had made the mistake of equating the cult with the true Faith in the first place. (Easy do do in the face of all the propaganda the cult masters produce to keep their victims in line.)
What in fact they gave away is an ungodly allegiance to a sect and its leaders. We happen to think that behind anyone's decision to leave the cult was God's grace, and one day God will help them to see that their Faith is, indeed, intact once it's been redeemed from association with the cults.
Since so many of these unfortunates, especially cult-bred youth, are poorly informed victims of relentless brainwashing, they may harden their hearts and not heed God's call to preserve within themselves the true Faith once they've made their escape. That, to be sure, is a willful act for which they are responsible, but the cult masters share in the blame for making the Faith appear odious to someone who doesn't know any better. The cult kingpins bear the same responsibility as do the Novus Ordo heresiarchs who have led their faithful away from the Faith.
Our position on all these traddie cults is not that they are heretics or schismatics but that what they offer is a Catholicism seen through the blurry lens of their incompetence, immaturity, and gross ignorance. In other words, theirs is an imitation Catholicism, a Catholicism as imagined by not-too-bright adolescents who think externals compose the essence of the Faith. If they are heretics -- and we don't know if they are -- they are heretics as a result of their malformation and catastrophically deficient education. The individuals of these cult-crazy sects may be members of the Catholic Church, but that membership is not the result of their belonging to the cult, which bears only the most superficial resemblance to the Catholic Church.
The man did not lose his Faith in God.He came to see that his so-called Faith in this cult was false.He could see that Pivarunas was not a True Bishop but a fraud.This person or persons should ask the countless young Souls who went to Mt St Michaels school and came to see the Church is much bigger then a cult like CMRI.They must be in a dreamworld.We know a number who woke up before and after the 2007 nuns leaving and are back in the Mainstream Church and quite angry that their hood-winked parents sent them to CMRI "schools".
DeleteYou better turn your AC thermostat up a few degrees, and make sure your recycle bins are sorted properly, or your "pope" might get mad at you.
DeleteThese good Catholics were driven back to the N.O. Church by the behavior of a cult leader. Supporters of the cult masters like Anon. 7/18 8:34 AM should direct their smarmy wit at the cult kingpins for creating such a bad spiritual environment that the mainstream Church looks attractive to people of faith. When the faithful would rather be under Bergie than under one of these cult "bishops," then the cults have a real problem.
DeleteIt's clear that all the nutty pseudo-Catholic sects and cults are doing grave damage to souls. We must hope that any return to the N.O. is just an intermediate portion of God's plan to deliver these souls from the evils of the cults. Perhaps the N.O. is just a "parking spot" for them until He provides a decent and independent traditional priest so they can resume practicing the true Faith. There are other priests out there who will have nothing to do with the cults and their "bishops." With prayer, God may bring one to Spokane and finally give those souls a priest free from all connections to Tradistani "bishops."
Or maybe these malcontents are just unstable people who can't handle any problems in life, and aren't happy anywhere they go. Maybe no one would be good enough for them. In any case, I hope they get out of the NO church before one of those "priests" rapes their children.
DeleteAnd maybe they aren't malcontents but people of conviction and genuine Catholic faith who recognize that the sects and their cult masters are only bad imitations of the Catholic Church.
DeleteWe hope they get out of the N.O. church, too. But it's a strong condemnation of the cults when people find the N.O. church less dangerous than the cults.
Or maybe it's a strong condemnation of the judgment and common sense of the people that make that choice.
DeleteAbsolutely not. The people's * sensus catholicus* tells them when something is rotten.
DeleteFace it: God gives the faithful insight to distinguish the real from the unreal, especially in these times when the Church Visible and Audible is obscured and silent and cannot guide them.
God gives the faithful an insight to distinguish the real from the unreal? This sounds superstitious. Where did you come up with this idea? Can you refer me to any kind of catechism or the writings of any theologian on this subject? I've heard people claim to have some kind of special "sensus catholicus", or some kind of inspiration of God to show them the truth that you describe, but somehow it always seemed to end up only confirming their own pet ideas.
DeleteHow about I tell you that I have a "sensus Catholicus" and an insight from God to distinguish the real from the unreal, and that my "sensus Catholicus" tells me that St. Gertrude's is a holy parish, and the vast majority of sedevacantist priests and bishops are devout and godly men whom we should follow, and that this blog is the work of Satan?
If that is what your "sensus Catholicus" counsels, then you can be assured that it's not Catholic, nor are you. What you possess after years of brainwashing is a -- pardon the barbarous coinage -- "sensus culticus" or, in better Latin, a "sensus superstitiosus."
DeleteThe blog represents a holy apostolate dedicated to exposing pseudo-Catholic and un-Catholic sects and their malformed, money-obsessed cult leaders. Every post documents that the content of your "sensus" is dead wrong.
So how can you prove that your "sensus whatever" is right and mine is wrong? And if one can prove with objective reasoning which one is right, then why does anyone need a "sensus Catholicus" in the first place? They could just look at the arguments that prove which position is right and skip the mumbo jumbo
DeleteAnd how do you know this "sensus Catholicus" exists at all? Where have you read about such a thing? I certainly haven't.
The knowability of the Catholic faith exists -- just do a Google search if you don't know. Trads have used the construct for years to justify their rejection of the N.O. You need to do some reading, Son.
DeleteSC is a connatural knowledge of its object and is very real, indeed. That's why we know you're dead wrong. Our documented proofs of the rottenness of the cult are merely secondary, as far as we're concerned.
Well, people have a sense of the Catholic Faith that they have learned from studying catechism books from before Vatican II. They can compare the teachings of those books with what Vatican II teaches and see the two are different. It doesn't take any insight from God to do that, as you posited.
DeleteBut you're saying that God gives people an innate sense to distinguish the "real from the unreal", as you said in 7/19, 2:14 AM, by which you imply, and confirmed in subsequent replies, that God gives people an innate sense to stop attending the Masses of the CMRI clergy and those of Bp. Sanborn and Bp. Dolan. That's where you lost me. If anyone claims to have an inspiration from God to leave the chapels of these organizations, that's where they become superstitious. God doesn't give anyone an inspiration to leave a particular chapel. Anyone who thinks God inspired him to stop attending some particular chapel or set of clergy is either delusional or superstitious.
God gives the grace to some to see these cult chapels for what they are -- poor imitations of the Catholic faith. And he gives some the courage to break away.
DeleteLet's back up a little. Are you seriously claiming that people have some kind of inspiration from God to know where they should go to Mass, or that they should stop attending some particular chapel?
DeleteI was speaking to Pistrina Liturgica.
DeleteYes, I know, Anon 2:20, but I thought you'd appreciate the fact that others concur with them & that's why I answered you.
DeleteGod doesn't give individuals inspiration. He gives them the teachings of the Church that they're supposed to follow. People learn what the Church teaches from reading good Catholics books printed with an Imprimatur before Vatican 2. The reason people leave the Vatican 2 church is not because they receive an inspiration from God, but because they compare what it teaches to what they read in pre-Vatican 2 Catholic literature.
DeleteTo claim to receive an inspiration from God about where one goes to church is a charismatic and superstitious mentality, and anyone who does that will end up in error very quickly. They'll be moved to error by their passions, as we all are, and in their superstition they'll think these disordered movements are a divine inspiration.
Just read the story of every heresiarch in the history of the Church. They all thought they were following God's truth, when in fact all they were following was their own passions. If they had stuck to reading good Catholic books and doing what it says in there and ignoring their own whims they would have saved their souls.
I see your point now, Anon 4:39. My point is that it is by God's grace (and inspiration if I dare use the word) to be willing to read good Catholic books with an Imprimatur pre-Vat II. I'm as far away from charismatic & superstitious nonsense as they come but I do believe that God speaks to us in various ways. We just have a problem listening. Yes, we MUST do what the true church tells us. I certainly agree with you there! God Bless.
DeleteWait a minute! I thought that it was Kerfoot that was going out with a nun every nite around 9! So now it's Pivarunas?? So almost everyone was pussyfooting around up there?
ReplyDelete