Saturday, August 1, 2015

SUMMER 2015 MAILBAG 1

Editor's Note: As we begin August, we thought it time to catch up with some summertime e-mail correspondence. In this series, our answers will be brief, in consideration of the heat. Here's a doozy that came in last week:
How dare you demons tell people there is no obligation to attend mass on Sunday!!! You are urging Catholics to break DIVINE LAW. If one's conscience does not allow him to fulfill the Sunday obligation at a N.O.church, then he must do it at a nearby traditional mass center or die in mortal sin.
This message sounds as if came from one of the ratty, miseducated cult "clergy."

We have only a couple things to say.

First, we'll set our agitated correspondent straight by pointing out, in Fr. J.J. Guiniven's words, not ours: "The precept of hearing Mass on Sundays and Feastdays arises solely from ecclesiastical law." (Our emphasis.)*

Second, according to Fr. Guiniven's  plain reading of the code's phrase sub dio, "any person who hears Mass outside of a church, public or semi public oratory, private cemetery chapel, or private oratory, does not, by reason of canon 1249, fulfill the precept, unless he attends a Mass celebrated in the open air." (Our emphasis.)** 

That means the cultlings in Trad Nation who believe all the nonsense preached about the operation of canon law during the sede vacante have got a big problem: Since the cult centers are not canonically erected churches or oratories or private cemetery chapels, in all likelihood the faithful won't satisfy their obligation by assisting at sede "Masses" held in chapels, hotel meeting rooms, private homes, etc.

Of course, for those who share the view that canon law doesn't operate now, there's no problem. But then, the next time these same folks hear their cult-obsessed "priests" appeal to canon law to demand attendance or to club someone into submission, then they'd better stand up to their malformed "clergy" and correct them in public. 

You can't have it both ways, you know. 

*The Precept of Hearing Mass, p.163, Catholic University Press, 1942.
** Ibid., pp. 120-121. He cites Aeternys-Damen, Woywod, and others as supporters of this opinion.

33 comments:

  1. I'm a little skeptical about these emails that this website claims it receives. If people wanted to write things like what is quoted above, why would they send them privately through email rather than write them in the comment box that everyone can read?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because many people prefer to make their contributions in that fashion. We offer two means: the comments sections and email. Very often emails are longer than the comments sections allows. Save your skepticism for your cult masters' claims.

      Delete
    2. No, I'm sorry, but this really beggars belief. Why would someone bother to send you a private email if they disagreed about something on this site? It makes no sense. They know they're not going to convince you. Why would they try? If they objected to something you had on here, the obvious response would be to protest publicly in the comments section, as I'm doing now.

      Your statement about the limitation on the length of comments is specious, as I've seen comments on here that are very long, many times longer than the brief paragraph you quote here. There's plenty of space in the comment section for anyone to speak his piece. And even if one comment doesn't have enough room for everything they want to say, there's nothing to stop anyone from spreading out their words over multiple comment boxes, as people have done here many times.

      Thank you for your advice, but my skepticism is put to much better use on the contents of this website.

      Delete
    3. We have no idea why some prefer e-mail to comments. Each to his own. Perhaps some like to deliver their insults in a more personal way. All we can say is that we receive heavier e-mail traffic than comments. (And we often think that some who e-mail us also make use of the comments section.)

      When the e-mail observations we receive and the answers we send appear to be of interest to our readership, we post them seasonally for wider circulation.

      However, believe what you will. Just know that you are completely off base. How much better off you'd be (financially, at least) if you exercised your doubting mind on the cult leaders you follow.

      Delete
    4. Regardless if this was a real email or not, this is a definitely a common and incorrect opinion, that people should go to schismatic or heretical churches with the intention of fulfilling a Sunday obligation, or to go to illegal and irregular (yet valid) clergy. I believe St. Antoninus died rather than go to a non-Catholic yet valid mass. I have seen many varieties of this problem of people going to illicit masses; there are sede feeneyites who go to the Byzantine even though it is in communion with Francis. Even the sede vacantists who promote going to their chapels regularly told people to not go to the SSPX nor novus ordo if those were the only options around (except maybe in the danger of death) - to avoid the "una cum" masses. And one could not reasonably expect that all sedes live near some sede chapel center, so obviously even if someone accepted going to these various chapels, there would have to be sedes who live too far away from one to reasonably be able to attend weekly. I lived a 5 hour round-trip from the nearest sede chapel and that's too much weekly to do that. The law doesn't oblige above I think driving 60 miles or an hour and fifteen minutes. Various sedes have given variable answers on how far is too far for driving. Also consider many years ago that weekly communion was not in fashion until wasn't it Pius X or some pope encouraged it? The obligation stands to keep Sunday holy in some way. I have heard the Japanese were 200 years without valid clergy and yet remained Catholic. Of course the point in dispute here is if one is a sedevacantist, should one go to these various chapels? Well, I'm a conclavist under pope Michael so this is not a consideration for me, but there is also no PM chapels nearby so I just pray at home on Sundays.

      (continued)

      Delete
    5. continued:
      This attitude of "it's the mass that matters" has been condemned by other trads, for instance the sede Friars Minor of Rochester, in an article on "Traditional Heresies": "The Mass is all that matters. This group will accept anything as long as they have their 'Latin Mass'. It is as if they have started a 'Latin is Lovely Club'.

      These people do not care at all about the Laws of the Church or her doctrines, they are unconcerned about Apostolicity, jurisdiction, or authority, as long as they have their ceremonies. It makes no difference to them whether they go to the Novus Ordo (Modernist new order Church of Vatican II) 'Indult Mass,' an apostate, or heretical one, as long as it is done in Latin. This group has made it possible for many 'independent' clergy to spring up."

      They continue by critiquing the illegal creation of religious societies without papal approval:

      "Likewise there are many who are trying to create their own religious communities or are trying to re-establish a religious order which has died out because of the Novus Ordo. These arrogant individuals are trying to usurp the authority of a Pope and/or bishops. To establish a new community requires the approval of a bishop for his diocese, or the approval of the pope for the world. Thus any 'religious' community they attempt to establish is null and void, invalid and illicit."

      http://friarsminor.org/xx2-12.html

      Of course I disagree with their "self-made popes" section, as I don't believe they raise any substantial objections. Also their language seems pretty oppositional and caustic and I don't think that's necessary for getting the point across, especially in these confusing times. Also, I have wondered why they have not proceeded to elect a pope, as they believe they are the only valid and licit clergy who they know of (which I recall reading on another of their articles).
      (continued)

      Delete
    6. continued:
      Another problem with being "obliged" to go to these chapels, from the sede position, is: which is one's parish and pastor if there are multiple competing sede chapels nearby? Normally I believe the clergy are assigned to specific areas which they have jurisdiction over and the Catholics that fall within that jurisdiction are supposed to go to that parish. Also, I remember reading that sedes are not pastors, but I forget why - maybe pastors are appointed to certain jurisdictions? The various sede clergy are vagrant wandering clergy, "sacramental clergy" which is a novelty which came out of the SSPX. Instead I just think a pope needed to be elected to give permission for a bunch of these things that sedes have decided to declare epikeia on and do for themselves. Yes, as such mentioned in the article, these chapels also do not fulfill the Sunday obligation, I believe. The problem of jurisdiction has been known since at least the 80s and I'm pleased that Pistrina and others are aware of these related issues, even if we have other disagreements.
      From 2009 Pope [Michael] on Bishop Sanborn:
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/14481404/April-2009-Pope-on-Bishop-Sanborn
      "In reading Bishop Sanborn’s articles, including the two I have mentioned, I find that he is realizing that he has not ordinary jurisdiction, which is required to ordain Catholic priests among other things."
      ... "It is my opinion, based upon Canon Law, that all of the Traditionalist priests and Bishops are ordained outside the Catholic Church, because many laws are violated in said ordinations and consecrations." Here I believe he was speaking of the sedevacantist ordinations/consecrations prior to his election. I believe that consecrations are supposed to have papal mandate, which sedes don't have but proceed to consecrate anyway rather than elect a pope or support someone elected. And then of course ordinations proceeding from illicit consecrations would be illicit. All in turn this renders sede chapels as not really an option for sedes (except maybe in danger of death, but even then...)

      Thuc and Lefebvre each signed the V2 documents, which would incur penalties for schism and heresy. Thus, all orders received from them would be valid but illicit and those who receive the orders would be barred from exercising them. This is again why it was necessary to elect a pope to remove these penalties which are reserved for the Holy See, as most of the "trad"/sede orders come from Thuc and Lefebvre.

      Anyway, useful article, Pistrina, thanks.

      Delete
    7. We always appreciate a vigorously and thoughtfully argued point of view. Thanks for your input.

      Delete
  2. Pistrina Liturgica

    We have some infro forwarded to us from some friends who have a number of contacts with concerned Souls about that priest ordained by Pivarunas down there in Australia.It appears every 3-4 months he leaves Australia to travel here to the States to spend 3 months basically on holiday.It appears he tells his followers either accept it or he will leave.Whow,talk about lazy and lack of pastoral care.We also know some very grave news about him that you would not permit to publish.It should send shock waves to all people of good will,to be warned.Be very warned.These sede scum clerics are worse then thieves.It also appears when he is over here,he lies to cover his tracks.Where does he get the funds?

    At least with the FSSP,etc,their level of studies would be university standard that Mater Dei,etc can't give and they would feed their men good food.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's hard to understand why people put up with such behavior, but sadly they do,

      You're right about he FSSP: educational standards and selection criteria are very high and they put the sedes to shame.

      Delete
  3. Don't you think Pivarunas would be asking what is he really up to.He has a duty to help Souls but from what I have read over the last few weeks,it's an a abomination.What is wrong with the people in Australia.Don't you think they would be asking themselves questions as to the background of this mans track record in Australia.From what I believe there is a independant priest in Brisbane called Father Harley.He had 7 years in the Archdiocese Seminary of Brisbane but left 2 years ago after his ordination and was conditionally reordained by a Traditional Bishop.These people should support him.He at least would be well trained in moral and pastoral theology,not like scumbag Gilchrist with 2-3 years "training" by Pivarunas.Yes,Pistrina Liturgica keep up the good expose of these sede garbage clerics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We hope our readers in Australia take your recommendation and run to this priest. Thanks for the tip.

      Delete
  4. Yes and Gilchrists track record in New Zealand.Shocking.The SSPX priests are laughting at him,they have taken over all his faithful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's hope someone or some organization comes to the rescue in Australia.

      Delete
    2. To anon. Aug. 2, 2:25 AM (& 5:41 AM): I’m sorry, Anon, but it is your ATTITUDE that beggars belief. Like the typical “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” worm that you are, you IGNORE what he has to say, but immediately start insinuating that that the e-mail is a “fabrication” by the author. (BTW, your comments have a familiar ring to them.) Well, whether it is “fabricated” or not or not, what the author says in the article is absolutely TRUE.

      IBut you, of course, cannot refute the message, so you do the only thing you can: change the subject, and go off on an diversionary tangent (which is what “CHECKIE” usually does). The message is the same, regardless of who gives it. Next time, Dirt-bag, if you have anything to say, say it about the ARTICLE, not the author.

      Delete
    3. A very interesting website.We agree with your articles that it is okay to stay home.Apart from the doubts about one's orders,how could someone support a untrained priest with no real theological education.In pre-Vatican Two day's,it was a full seven-eight years Seminary and if one read's Seminary manuals of 1917,the standards were very high.

      On a different subject which should send a warning to these self-proclaimed sede Bishops and priests,the majority of priests and Bishops go to Hell.

      Delete
  5. Not only were the academic standards very high back then, the criteria for entering a seminary were high, too. 95% of the sedes operating today would have had their applications rejected in the old days. And most of the few who could have qualified for entrance wouldn't have been able to survive the pressure and demands for intellectual excellence and hard work. It shows how depraved we are as a culture when the laity vigorously defend their malformed "clergy."

    The sede cultists won't like your that last observation. They'll never stop all that nonsensical chatter about their "holy" and "good" priests and bishops. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes,Reader Excellent comments.The sede cultists
    should wake up before it's too late.God bless your work.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes,I agree with the readers comments.If the seminary staff of the pre-1950;s,visited the pesthouse and Mater Dei at Omaha,they would be in horror.

    I understand from several friends that the training at Omaha is really grave.It appears that Pivarunas and his side-kick teach both at the so-called Seminary and School.Most days the so-called seminarians pick apples and other strange jobs instead of undertaking studies.How any young man could go there in really beyond words.I would advise them to go to the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's good advice, but the only problem is that the SSPX would probably reject almost all the American sede lads as intellectually incapable of undergoing their rigorous program of studies. To be brutally honest, in the old days, these guys would have been fit only to become lay brothers working in kitchens, stables, or the fields. Only in Tradistan U.S.A. can the academically unfit aspire to -- and attain -- the priesthood.

      Delete
  8. Let me set the record straight, briefly, if I may, regarding this distraction being posted on your site:

    1) Father Gilchrist was indeed in the seminary for around 6 years, and I attest to this as a FACT.
    2) Father Gilchrist is not in Omaha at the priest meeting this week as charged, but remained in New Zealand with his community.
    3) Father has abandoned no one and in fact has been given some room to assist other groups by the help of Father Legg who was ordained by Bishop Pivarunas.
    4) I know Father well, and while I simply cannot directly confirm his innocence against the charges of thievery and immorality, I will say I find these heinous spectacularly without merit. I again will attest to his moral character and zeal for the salvation of souls. Without doubt my response #1 shows that the poster has no credibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father Gilchrist entered Mater Dei in 1999 and was ordained in 2003.

      Father Gilchrist is over in the USA.He said Mass at Mt St Michael a few weeks ago.

      You don't know what you are talking about.As to Father Legg,it would shock people.

      A number of faithful have turned to the SSPX who once supported Gilchrist.

      You don't lack any credibility and are trying to blind people like a typical Sede Cultist.Wake up

      Delete
  9. Gilchrist has no community in New Zealand.He dumped them and we hear Legg is down there.Anonymous 4.06pm
    indeed does not know what they are talking about.You should ask the SSPX priests in New Zealand their knowledge on his background.Gilchrist's concern for Souls,what a joke.How goofty.Get your head out of the sand and know your facts before spreading falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes,we agree with last two comments.It is well known among the SSPX priests of New Zealand and Australia what Gilchrist is doing and to say he has a concern for Souls,whow we are speechless.The good thing is one day these Sede Clerics and Gilchrist will be standing before God and having to make a account.They will not be able to run then.

      Yes,Gilchrist entered Mater Dei in 1999 and ordained by Pivarunas in 2003.Gilchrist told a number of people he was ordained within 3 years because Pivarunas said he was short of priests.This Gilchrist supporter is spreading falsehood.Nice try but it doe's not work.

      Delete
  10. Reader/Pistrina Liturgica.In response to the comments of that Gilchrist supporter-August15th 4.06pm.Their words are false and to hood-wink good people.We bet it is either Pivarunas or one of his priests trying to do damage control,it will not work.


    My family and I are former CMRI supporters and left back in 2005.We attend the SSPX.We can support the various comments about CMRI/Mt St Michaels,etc.We finally woke up with others and left.


    We have back copies of all the editions of Adsum and the one in 2000 show pictures of Gilchrist and Gabriel Lavery(now a member of CMRI)becoming lectors.They had tonsure in 1999.

    We still read the Sunday Bulletins of the Mount online at stmichaels.org.Father Julian Gilchrist was there as there was a annoucement on page 2 of that Sunday a few weeks ago in the notices section.


    We know one family in Post Falls,Idaho who have family in Wanganui,New Zealand.They were told by various SSPX faithful down there about the scandals of Gilchrist there in New Zealand.As far as having concern for Souls,how goofty.They should ask the people and famlies there who were hurt.One family who only asked a question on a article concerning our Catholic Faith was told by Gilchrist to get out of "his" Church and go back to the SSPX.Gilchrist could not help these Souls as he lacked training and to solve the problem,he gets rid of them.Everyone has the right to ask their Pastors questions on the Faith and get a answer.


    There is no CMRI community in New Zealand except about six people whom untrained Legg is looking after(He entered Omaha back in 2007 and was ordained with Father Oswalt back in 2011).


    When Pivarunas visited New Zealand,the total number was between 70-100 supporters.The Whangarei center now SSPX had about 50-60 and Pivarunas gave some of them Confirmation.There was supporters in the South Island also.


    The TRUTH always come out.Ask former Dolan/Cekada/SGG supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The readers of your website might be interested in a book that has just been written by a former CMRI nun.It is called-Spiritual Blakmail.My Journey Through A Catholic Cult by Sherri Schettler.She gives much detail about what she saw and the scandals.She walked out back in 2000.If you type in this book on goole,it will come up and can be brought from Amazon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father Legg received Tonsure with another young man from Poland(he left within 6 months) back in early 2008 and was ordained with Father Oswalt in June 2011(3 years).Read the 2008 Adsums.We know several people who once supported the CMRI Church in St Cloud,MN where Gilchrist was sent after Ordination.A number there knew he only had 3 years training and said his latin was poor.It also appears he was a disaster in Olathe,CO.Yes,that book by Sherri called Spiritual Blackmail is a real eyeopener and Pivarunas will not like this infro being out in public.

      Delete
  12. We thought you might like to know this infro given to us from the SSPX.Legg had no other seminary training before entering Mater Dei.The so-called training there is really high school text books based on the Baltimore Catechism's1-3.It appears the seminarians sit in the "classroom(converted garage)" and read out sections of writings.
    In the pre-Vatican two days,once one got to 3rd year,the classes were in Latin and the course was 7-8 years.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ouch,it look's as if CMRI are really a disaster.One old priest once said what do you expect when it is really make up your rules training.Pivarunas and these other Sede "seminaries" are not following the Pre Vatican Two Seminary training manuals and even if they tryed,they have no solid formation either.A very sad state of affairs.Why do you think the home alone movement is growing.Bishop Clarence Kelly said in his sermon at his consecration of Bishop Santay back in 2007 that one is to heed the warning of St Paul-do not lay your hands lightly on any man.The ordaining Bishop will face the consequences of the scandal and hurt these Clerics cause and it will be on their conscience.There must be truth in the matter if the FSSP and other Mainstream priests are talking to people and warning them about the behaviour of Gilchrist in Austrlia and New Zealand.Yes people,the truth always comes out.Dolan did his best to hood wink people but it did not work.Thank God for this website.These sede cleric scumbags need to be exposed.My family and I also attend the SSPX.At least with the Society priests,they have high standards.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It appears the a number of Adsums between 2006-2010 have been removed.If we remember,there was a picture in the august 2009 edition of Pivarunas and the group in New Zealand he gave the Sacrament of Cofirmation to.It appears,John Lane(Perth,Australia)does not support Gilchrist but goes to the SSPX where Father Johnson is the priest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The formation of "priests" throughout all Sedelandia is mighty scandal that demands drastic reform, starting with the instruction of Latin. We have known a "priest" who had to ask to read the Breviary in English and who does not possess one Latin theology book in his own library. Another one was so bad he finally had to buy a book of "501 Latin Verbs Fully Conjugated" even though he had been a "priest" for some time. And we all know about Checkie's challenges in the language.

    In spite of the serious educational deficiencies of most of the sede candidates for the priesthood, we see no reason that the majority of the texts of the theologate's curriculum should not be in Latin. That might mean reprinting some of the old books, but now with print-on-demand technologies such a task would be easy and relatively economical. (Instead of lavish vacations and trips abroad, the money would be better spent on this enterprise.) And we see no reason that these "seminarians" should not be able to read the texts with ease. Church Latin is much more easily acquired than classical Latin, provided one works assiduously under competent instructors.

    In addition to improving Latin instruction, all these "seminaries" need to stop the round-robin-reading-out- loud pedagogy. We have heard reports that this dreadful mode of instruction, if you can call it that, is common in many of the sede "seminaries." If the "professors" are too lazy or too stupid prepare a daily lecture that deepens the understanding of the assigned reading, then they need to be removed.

    But don't hold your breath for any change at all. That's why, in the end, the SSPX and FSSP will always have the advantage no matter what their ecclesial position is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reading archives and comments.

      Have learned that SSPX and FSSP are valid choices after letting go of the connection with the Trio fostered by association with TRRadio as a member until recently.... in researching a move to the mainland from Hawaii.

      Care very much about priestly formation. It is going to be very satisfying to find a place with well-formed priests. Took a look at the FSSP website -

      Delete
  16. The attackers who have posted anonymously need to apply to a seminary immediately. The world needs priests, many priests, many holy priests. Be constructive, not destructive. If you are a female, please report to the kitchen where your hands are needed.

    ReplyDelete