Editor's Note: In July, a correspondent drew our attention to a new fatwā against facial PIERCINGS, solemnly issued by the sede Ayatollah of SW Ohio. According to our source, such body art is now formally banned from the decaying SGG cult center.
Insofar as prohibiting facial piercings certainly means that anyone so marked setting foot on the premises must be removed along with the adorning body jewelry, we have some helpful, practical questions for the cult legislator's consideration:
1. Who'll do the inspecting, and who'll order the offender off the property? Must the celebrant wait until the sermon when, from the pulpit, he can survey the slack-jawed, bug-eyed crowd to descry impudently glittering nose rings, studs, septum clickers, ear cuffs, plugs, tunnels, labrets etc.? Will he then and there expel the disobedient, while a savage, twitching traddie mob hoots, whistles, and growls unintelligible slurs at the fleeing miscreants?
At communion, must a vigilant levite or alert acolyte watch for tongue rings? Should "clergy" interrupt the rite to summon a burly, foul-smelling usher to escort the skewered delinquent out to the littered, pot-holed parking lot? Or will the "principal" or his wife inspect each person upon entering the cult center, making sure to demand, "Open wide!" before anyone can take a seat? Or maybe Grand Panjandrum Dan himself will recruit the entire cultling horde to denounce any "holey" pew mates so they can be thrown out -- after the collection, of course.
2. But wait! On deeper reflection, since we're sure the cult masters didn't think this problem through, we ask whether by banning piercings Dannie meant that body jewelry only was prohibited. That is to say, if cult members remove the rings, studs etc., can they enter the cult center, even if the piercing holes on the face or tongue are still visible to a busybody's practiced eye? Or must the holes be surgically excised before readmission?
3. How will "clergy" treat the adult womenfolk who have normally pierced ears? We mean, if you're banning piercings, then you can't let these wanton Jezebels defiantly hang around after you've booted out the perforated punks, can you?
That wouldn't be fair!
And if a hair-splitting, wannabe cult "canonist" smarmily answers, as he looks down his nose at you, "We're only banning facial piercings -- ear lobes are not part of the face," does that mean the scruffy kid with a single zirconium stud earring gets a pass? Or how about young and old, male and female alike, who sport an ear tunnel or an ear plug? May they then remain thanks to the "canonist's" earlobe loophole?
These are tough, tough questions. Undoubtedly, they'll occupy the cult's meddlesome but uneducated "theologians" for some time to come as they research and debate the topic rather than minister to souls. Helping people is not as sexy as dreaming up new sins and levying draconian penalties: It just doesn't satisfy the itch to deny, butt in, scold, and control, does it?
The real question, in our eyes, is, Why do the sede cult masters waste so much time dreaming up Mickey-Mouse, intrusive rules sure to rub the faithful the wrong way? In the good old days, the Church counseled her clergy to refrain from trivial and invasive rule-making lest they provoke the laity. Along the same line, why do these clerical fainéants expend the little energy they have by engaging in senseless polemics with rivals or in proving to everybody that Bergie's a heretic? Competitors like the SPPX ignore them as you would a gnat at a picnic on a windy day, and all trads recognize Bergie for the menace he is.
This latest effort at granular manipulation is fruitless wheel-spinning at its worst.
Instead, cult "clergy" ought to spend all that extra time cooking their own meals, performing general maintenance on the cult center, cleaning their living quarters (especially the young Fathers' refrigerator), doing yard work, and providing pastoral care. The faithful would welcome the relief from all the petty meddling. They'd also rejoice in being free from the exhausting demands to serve the clergy rather than vice versa.
Trad clergy have to stop acting like they have canonical status, jurisdiction and ergo, the ability to bind and loose upon their faithful, barring the diocesan groups. They don't.
ReplyDeleteThey exist solely because 30 years of Franco-Germanic liberal experimentation was foisted upon the world by one of the worst Popes, if not people, to ever claim the Chair of St. Peter in 1969.
They are only a temporary situation. The Avis store you go to when your car's in repair. They have to stop acting like they are the Church. No jurisdiction, no papal mandate, no succession and more infighting than the Protestants.
Where did Dolan even learn his theology? The Cliffnotes version of Thomas Aquinas and the Church Fathers? Maybe then, he'd know that 95% of what he's doing is way beyond his authority.
All these men are poorly educated and intellectual mediocrities. As a result, they can't keep their ambition to control in check. They haven't the sense to ignore the unimportant and to concentrate on saving souls.
DeleteIn my experience it's fairly normal for trad chapels to prohibit face shrapnel in the dress code.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is all this ad-hoc legislation. If the sede kingpins had any experience as professionals, they would have known that dress-and-decorum codes should be well thought-out ahead of time and made available to all at one time. And the prohibitions should be kept at a minimum.
DeleteBut the cult masters won't be bothered with anything like planning or prudence, so they arbitrarily invent new rules every time something bothers them. Not a good strategy for managing human beings.
Trad chapels, on the whole, have a nasty tendency to over-regulate trivialities -- and to overlook violators who are big donors or who are related to big donors.
Smart organizations keep the rules to a minimum and don't legislate based on personal taste.
Haven't you ever heard of a dress code? Every trad chapel has one, from the most liberal Motu joint to the most extreme fringe sedevacantist place. And they're all pretty similar. They tell people what they are expected to wear in the house of God. They usually exclude things like T-shirts, shorts, jeans, clothing with large graphics, and so on. And face shrapnel fits into that category just fine.
DeleteI'm not sure how long you've been around the trad world, but you're questioning something here that everyone takes for granted.
We haven't got a problem with dress codes. We've got a problem with all this piecemeal legislation that trickles out bit by bit when the cult masters don't like something.
DeleteWhen you write a dress code, you sit down and think it through carefully so you have everything there at the beginning. That way you don't appear arbitrary. You don't incrementally add to the code every time you don't like something. That's there professional way.
"Face shrapnel" has been around for a long time. Why has it taken the cult masters this long to banning it? Is it because the kids, now grown older and completely disgusted with the hollow cultists, are rebelling?
It seems to us that kids brought up in a decent, middle class family would find piercing abhorrent. But traddie rite-trash are different, we suppose.
"questioning something here that everyone takes for granted."
DeleteThat sounds like a good thing, people need to ask more questions.
Just as an FYI, in Florida they ban any shoes that show a women's feet. This includes the incredibly scandalous peek a boo shoes that show the ever tempting top of one's toes.
ReplyDeleteThey probably just consider those to be too informal for the house of God.
DeleteAnon 12:35AM, I don't think you understand what open toed shoes for women are. They're not sandals or even in the sandal category, but are a dress shoe with an open toe - usually high heels. Therefore they are not 'informal'. As a matter of fact they're usually worn with formal attire. Maybe they're banned because you usually see them with an evening gown.
DeleteI don't know why they're banned and neither do you. However, I think your hypothesis that they're banned because they show too much female skin is absurd. I think my hypothesis that they're considered informal is much more probable.
DeleteWe think these guys are SICK and have a foot fetish. As we've said before, if you ban peep-toe shoes, then you better get rid of most of the statues of female saints who are often represented as wearing sandals.
DeleteWhen my family once visited Omaha,women were walking around the grounds in tight jeans and the school girls were playing basketball in short shorts.
ReplyDeleteSounds like that type of atmosphere would be more congenial to the writer of this blog. No annoying rules about dress!
DeleteAll the discussion about the “appropriateness” of open-toed shoes only goes to reinforce the Pistrina article’s point about the cult-masters’ sick preoccupation with TRIVIALITIES. I might add too that anyone who thinks that open-toed shoes are too “provocative” or too “informal” for church has a WARPED MIND. (Several of these comments, by the way, have a familiar, “Tony-esque” quality about them.)
DeleteDid it ever occur to anon. Aug. 17,12:35 AM and 12:33 AM (who are probably one and the same) that OUR LADY probably wore “open-toed” shoes? (Most representations of her, in fact, show her with NO SHOES at all.) I’m sure that if she showed up at SGG today, she’d be banned from the property!
It’s ironic that cult-masters like Dannie and Tony can ban “inappropriate attire,” yet not peep a word about boys watching porn on SGG’s school computer (or engaging in fornication at the school). We suggest that you read up on that too, and not just “cherry pick” articles like this one to argue about. But the truth is, you ARE aware of all that and more – about all the double-standard hypocrisy that went on at SGG. Yet you choose to IGNORE it, and instead morph into tangential discussions about “dress codes” and “open-toed shoes.” In short, you are a HYPOCRITE. (But, of course, if you are who we THINK you are, that comes as no surprise.)
Hey Watcher and Reader,
Delete"Introibo Ad Altare Dei" is back with a post called "To counsel the doubtful and instruct the ignorant"
Www.introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
Boy, this guy really rips you apart--yet again!!
Dream on, brain-dead!
DeleteRefute what he wrote moron! Oh, I know..."we answered all that already" a Just like you revealed the names of the "witnesses"--and he explains why what they saw is so important. It's an argument never even brought up until now! This guy's a lawyer and a former science teacher. Not exactly "brain dead"-- and he's not a proofreader for textbooks like Craig; or a janitor perhaps, like you!! LMAO
DeleteWe've read the blog, and it refutes nothing. It does, however, offer vigorous counterclaims to our position -- counterclaims to which we have replied. Fair enough. But the parties who really count in this discussion know the truth. For the rest, nothing will settle the issue except a photograph of the abp. and Wee Dan at the moment of imposition. Since that eventuality is unlikely for a number of reasons, no amount of counterargument will erase the suspicion of one-handed conferral in the minds of most people, including fanatical cultists.
DeleteThe simplest thing to do is re-ordination and re-consecration. Doesn't "One Hand" know that in the past, bishops often re-consecrated each other privately just to insure the integrity of their orders?
Mht seminary is obsessed with how women dress, including their shoes. Most likely, the shoes were "too sexy" for the male parishioners. I'm pretty sure that the women are only tolerated there, not welcomed.
ReplyDeleteWe think you're right!
DeleteDoes not surprise us with MHTS.
ReplyDeleteIt surprises me that anyone could still believe Father Cekada over the mass exodus of former parishioners. Numbers do not lie, but a man who has obviously discredited himself on many occasions does lie. Many former parishioners have spoke out in disgust, others quietly warn others to stay away, and others are still intimidated by these people. It is all very sad.
ReplyDeleteVery sad indeed. But there is hope for some of these people, as you'll see in this weekend's post.
DeleteI have traveled a lot and I have been to many trad chapels around the country. It seems there is a direct correlation between the scope and detail of the published "dress code" and the degree of overall cultishness of the chapel. The use of terms like 'prohibited' and 'forbidden' is another sign. These are the places you see women of all ages, including, sadly, little girls, outfitted like a cross between a fanatic Muslim woman and an Amish bag lady. I have seen pictures of Catholic congregations from the 1940s and 50's, no one EVER dressed like that. It calls to mind the horrors I've read about the mother of all trad cults, the early CMRI.
ReplyDeleteAs Catholics "of a certain age" who grew up in the '50s, we, too, never saw Catholic women dressed like the traddie pioneer womenfolk. Women wore normal dresses, skirts, blouses, and stylish shoes. To be sure, the quality of habiliment varied from parish to parish depending on the economic status of the congregation, but in our experience there was none of this ankle length dress or wrist-length blouse business. We don't recall, either, this disturbed emphasis on female foot ware and their toes and heels.
ReplyDeleteOne vivid memory confirms that open-toed dress shoes must not have been forbidden: one summer Sunday in an upper-income church, after Mass one of the altar boys stepped on the foot of a very well-dressed, peep-toed shod exiting parishioner, who cried out loud in pain. The priest came out, saw the woman hobbling, found out what happened, and gave the kid a swift cuff on the ear, after profusely apologizing to the unfortunate woman.
What we see today is sheer lunacy.
Excellent comments Reader.In a recent comment to a article several weeks ago on your website,several attacked the various comments made about CMRI,Pivarunas,Gilchrist,etc and said to offer up prayers for them and not criticism.Another said where was the concrete proof.What planet are these mislead,blind goof's on.We really feel sorry for them.
ReplyDeleteThe lay people have every right to voice their concerns when they see "clerics" behaving like that.To sit back and say nothing,get real.
As to the concrete proof,there must be TRUTH in the matter if the SSPX,etc know what is going on and warning people to keep away.
Pistrina Ltiurgica,it would be very interesting to know if many people contacted you via your private email address and told their horror stories and agreed with the varrious postings about the standards,food,etc at Mater Dei,Omaha,CMRI,etc.Keep up the EXCELLENT work on the exposing these "trad" Cults.God bless and Mary keep you
We did indeed receive numerous private emails that were not only in agreement with all the complaints but that also offered additional corroboration.
DeleteThe correspondents said they were too afraid to post under the comments section (even as "anonymous"), either because they still attended one of these cult chapels or because they had relatives who did.
Since most of these correspondents asked us not to repeat the information, not even if we put it in our own words, we have kept our silence.
We understand the laity's fears and their reluctance to speak up. It's a pity because if people would unite and register their complaints, the cult masters would have to back down or starve. Unity is everything, and the cult clergy use that "pray and shut up" ploy to keep the people in check.
Pistrina Liturgica.
ReplyDeleteWe have just obtained a copy of that book called-My journey through a Catholic Cult by former CMRI nun Sherri Schettler available from Amazon.It brought tears and also anger at what see saw.Yes,Father Kerfoot was having a relationship with one of the nuns.Sherri and another nun went to Pivarunas when he was visiting the Mount to complain about a number of problems.He did nothing(what is he up to).A very sad story.We attend a large SSPX Church and are happy with their priests and their concern for Souls.In Christ.
Thanks for the note. That book should be required reading for all traditional Catholics. The sad, sick fact is that the cult bishops do not supervise their "clergy," while treating every warning as a direct attack. No other enterprise could survive for long if management always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to bad employee behavior. The cults survive because they tell the people it's a sin to criticize "clergy," and the poor folks believe them. The people should know they have a duty to criticize clergy breaking bad.
DeleteFrom 2009 there is "Waiting for the Apocalypse: A Memoir of Faith and Family by Veronica Chater "
Deletehttp://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Apocalypse-Memoir-Faith-Family/dp/0393066037
Honestly, a lot of these strict dress codes or whatever probably on the whole to me seem like a good thing, it's just how to implement them and make sure they adhere to Catholic teaching and that lawful things aren’t prohibited.
Also I reject sedevacantism and I think that's part of this problem, because if sedes were under a pope the pope would decide if what was going on was acceptable. My concern is that there could be some wolves among sheep as clergy who promote various strict guidelines as a way of inciting rebellion among young people. So I think it's good to monitor these kind of strict measures. I have not looked in to this extensively, but I imagine the youth retention rate for "traditionalists" is probably on par with the novus ordo - which is to say, not good. The "stricter" they are, the more enticing "rebellion" seems - but there is a way to be "strict" without making "forbidden fruit" look attractive.
St. Francis de Sales said, "Correction given in anger will never prove as effectual as when it proceeds from reason alone". If various "trad" chapels come off as oppositional to "defiant young people" (and I'm presuming most of the "offenders" will primarily be younger people/women on this issue), something of a Cold War is initiated of push coming to shove and escalating conflict. Instead, the philosophy of respecting one’s body, which is to be a temple of the Holy Ghost, and explaining Catholic teaching on body modifications and tattoos should inspire natural “obedience” on this issue. I have one skateboarder friend who has tattoos all over his face - if he ever converted, will he ever be admitted to go to communion, or what? Or transgender people. There are many other questions to ask. Thanks for bringing the topic up. I don't know what canon law says on these issues for sedes (besides of course that these chapels are illegal, etc.)
We agree with your observations, especially your citation of St. Francis. The problem is too complex to allow the ill-trained, punishment-crazy sedes to pontificate. This will take men who have a real formation and a genuine pastoral orientation.
DeleteIt is common knowledge that you are not allowed to criticize priests or the primary financial contributors of the parish. If you disobey this unwritten rule, than you will be shunned or asked to leave.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why we call them cults. They are not Catholic.
DeleteAnd what is your suggestion for getting a family member away from this cult? Especially when the family member's spouse is a brainwashed follower who refuses to listen to any reason or facts?
ReplyDeleteThe situation you describe is common and very difficult. We experienced it ourselves. Our suggestion, and it's by no means entirely satisfactory, to make sure the sane spouse keeps hearing about all the abuses so that he/she at least has a clear head. In that way, there's a chance that the family will give less money, which is what keeps the cult leaders in business.
DeleteTrue, the strategy can cause dissension within the home, but the evil of the cults is so great that extreme measures must be used. The bewitched spouse may remain, but he/she will remain knowing that the other half disapproves. No doubt, the cult masters will encourage a divorce, but at that time, the brainwashed spouse may see the light. If not, then you might have to give up.
We are praying for you that this family members spouse wakes up.We know what you are going through.Thankfully,we and a number of good faithful left CMRI back in 2003 after the Kerfoot fiasco and attend the SSPX.Yes sedevacantism is rotten.
ReplyDeleteRotten to the core in its organized form. The only decent sede clergy we know are entirely independent and despise the cult masters. (But not all the independents are worthy: many of them defend the cult masters openly and help them to create mischief.)
DeleteOur family agree with the comments raised about CMRI and the scumbag Gilchrist(we hear from Australia he buried someone and then never went back to see the grieving spouse,can you believe it).A horror story.
ReplyDeleteAnd a perfect example of terrible priestly formation.
DeleteSpeaking of leaving, how many parishioners of Our Lady of The Sun left when this crew came to Arizona? Is it growing or declining? Is it still run by a board or did it get taken over by Dolan/Sanborn group? What are the numbers at sgg in Ohio? Growing or declining? What about MHT in Florida? Growing or declining? The numbers for Michigan's Our Lady QOM? Any of these church's growing? I have read that cmri and sspx's numbers are increasing, taking away dissatisfied parishioners in cincinnati but is there even an alternative in these other places?
ReplyDeleteWe hear that OLS still has a very small membership. A few years ago, Big Don made a play to take over the considerable remaining assets, but the board president, a lawyer, firmly rejected his audacious demand. The board still runs the place, and Big Don still plays the hireling because he needs the money. Last year there was a story that OLS was looking for a new priest and had even made a few inquiries, but we've heard nothing more than that.
DeleteOne report we had was that SGG had about 200 people, with membership declining and participation weakening. The little CMRI chapel in the area, which is run by a strong and well educated board of professionals, seems to be growing, from everything we've heard. Its membership is made up of many of the Gerties who left SGG as a result of the 2009 SGG School scandal. The SSPX chapel also appears to be thriving as is IC in Norwood.
MHT in FL has been "sheep stealing" members from a rival independent traditional Church, but we've heard that MHT in turn lost members who had been reading this site. One FL resident tells us that the MHT chapel not really growing, although it does have occasional vacation visitors. However, we really don't have any report about its growth or decline that we'd consider reliable.
OLQM is not growing, and the members are unhappy with the idiot Skipper and with Big Don. Some people have written on their weekly envelopes "NOT FOR FLORIDA" since they are still embittered at the way Big Don packed up and left when his boss gave him his marching orders.
The people in Cincinnati are lucky with all the choices they have (SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, and independent chapels), but there are also alternatives in MI, FL, and AR, which have absorbed some of the dissatisfied. The problem in MI is that the alternatives are a long drive from the OLQM cult center and hence inconvenient. The Floridians have an alternative close by -- which is why the cult has tried to cause trouble by recruiting the weak minded.
What is the Church's dress code for women then? Are sleeveless dresses a bit above the knees alright then?
ReplyDeleteHere's our understanding: The Church demands modesty. However, what's modest changes over time and is subject to local custom and the culture. What would have been grossly immodest in, say, 1900, was perfectly modest in 1940. What would have provoked immoderate lust in a man in 1900 -- let's say an exposed ankle -- didn't excite a NORMAL man of 1940. In many hot Catholic countries, women go to Mass bare-legged and in sandals that expose their toes, ankles, and heels, and no one NORMAL gets upset.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know exactly what the U.S. Church's dress code would have been in 2015 if VII had not taken place. However, we're sure it would not have demanded Catholic women attire themselves like "Amish bag ladies" (as one commenter above so wittily remarked).
BTW, at a Sunday Mass in a cult chapel in the 1990s, we once saw a very attractive, upper class, and wealthy woman in her late 30s or early 40s who was wearing an expensive designer skirt that was way, way above her knees, her blouse left most of her arms exposed, and, it being summer, she wore strapless high-heeled sandals. She approached the communion rail, received the Sacrament from one of the cult masters, and afterwards was seen chatting animatedly with the celebrant. Could it be there is a separate code for the quality in Traddieland?
Is the remark about the "Amish bag ladies" one against the STYLE of dress or against how much skin they cover? Because as you know for all history Catholic women have covered the same amount of skin. Were all Catholic women throughout all history "Amish bag ladies"? What about the Mother of God? Should She appear dressed "up to date" to conform with your liberal and worldly views?
DeleteWhen was this happening, women going to Mass bare legged? What year? Where?
Anon Aug. 22, 7:34pm - We picture the BVM in the style of the time in which she lived. It would be ridiculous to picture her in today's style.
DeleteI said APPEARED, not paint.
DeleteIncidentally, she gave Jacinta Marto a prophecy stating that certain mortally sinful fashions would be introduced and that those who serve God cannot follow those fashions. This was in 1919 at the latest, and the downward spiral of immodesty started in the 1920's.
Anon Aug. 22, 9:00pm - Indeed there are mortally sinful fashions today, but honestly I don't find them in the trad chapels. Nice skirts & dresses just below knees & short-sleeved or even sleeveless tops I don't find provocative & don't give them a second look after seeing the half dressed women & girls out in the world with short shorts & bellybutton baring, cleavage showing tops all of which are so tight you wonder how they breathe or bend. I'm not a shoe person so opened-toed shoes wouldn't set me off either. What DOES bother me is men coming in jeans & even t-shirts with worldly logos front & back!! Thankfully these are few & far between. Should one appear before the King of kings dressed so casually?
DeleteThere are very decent styles today for Catholic women that do not demand they look like mummies.
DeleteAs for Anon 8/22, 7:34, it's obvious he's never been to a rural church in Latin America or Italy or Spain, where anklet stockings were sufficient. In addition, the Catholic university one of the Readers attended before VII, allowed socks as sufficient for attendance.
Your first paragraph is basically what McHugh and Callan say in their moral theology.
ReplyDeleteIf modesty changes then what's the limit? Today women are going around almost naked.
You think Padre Pio was crazy then like the cult masters? He forbade women to go to Church sleeveless and with short dresses. It goes without saying he condemned pants too.
Padre Pio passed into eternity in September 1968, almost 47 years ago.
DeleteTempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis.
What does mentioning the year he died have anything to do with my comment about him?
DeleteAh, we forgot you probably couldn't read Latin, and therefore you missed our point. Forgive us.
DeleteThe reason is that after almost a half century, times, mores, and customs change. The good friar may well have accepted tailored, dress pants as perfectly suitable in church, particularly in the winter. And they do cover up all those provocative, shapely, exposed gams, don't they?
I knew what the phrase meant but still didn't see your point.
DeleteDon't you know he had a sign in his church banning what you seem to have no problem with? He most certainly did not approve of pants. He even told one woman who had a store to SHUT IT DOWN and get rid of all the pants otherwise he would never give her absolution.
As we said, the times have changed, and he would have changed, too. He wasn't a nut like modern Trads. He was acting within the mores of his time and culture. (We'd also like the source of the anecdote you cited.)
DeleteHahaha. You made me chuckle. Padre Pio was among the few who DIDNT change and wasn't "getting up to the times" unlike the clergy all over the world and he was getting more rigid as time passed by.
DeleteWhat, you don't know about Padre Pio and modesty? I thought this was common knowledge among trads.
Altering attitudes to externals such as dress, is not a willful act of "getting up with the times." It's a natural progression that passes almost imperceptibly. In 2015, he would still have strongly defended modesty, no doubt. It's just that his views would have been reflective of the mores. We bet he would not censure pants.
DeleteLiberals! Did you not read he told the woman to shut down her pants store? Are you getting senile? Well, you people are crazy anyway. You can tell you have lost it just by reading the posts here. 4 years of this stuff? You have to be not right in the head to continue this stuff week after week for more than 4 years.
DeleteTo Anonymous 8/23/2015 4:14 AM: "What, you don't know about Padre Pio and modesty? I thought this was common knowledge among trads."
DeleteIt certainly is. But the writer of this blog wouldn't really qualify as a traditionalist, as you'll pick up on if you hang around here for a while (which I don't recommend).
When I say this writer is not a traditionalist I am specifically thinking about how the priests he promotes on this site are the FSSP and SSPX clergy, who accept the validity of the modernized "sacraments" that come from Vatican 2, including Holy Orders.
DeleteThe "priests" of the FSSP derive their orders from modernist prelates, themselves ordained and consecrated in the doubtful modernized rite of Holy Orders.
Real traditionalists reject the changes of Vatican 2, especially with regard to the critical sacrament of Holy Orders, on which most of the other sacraments depend.
So, despite the "wonderful formation" that the FSSP "priests" receive, they're most likely not priests at all. And if you accept the new rite of ordination and the new sacraments as valid, you might as well go to the Novus Ordo anyway.
Yes; this is the one problem I see with both of these suggestions which are so welcome otherwise. It is a big problem, and we are left once again with formation AND Holy Orders being critical.
DeleteExactly right. Without a proper formation, Orders are a disfigurement.
DeleteWhy would you have the picture of Lewis Carroll, an Anglican heretic, as your avatar?
ReplyDeleteWe originally chose the Rev. Mr. Dodgsson's image because his topsy-turvy world of Wonderland was the perfect analog to the inverted world of bad scholarship and gross error that we found in Cekada's awful book "Work of Human Hands," a weird place we called "Blunderland" (for obvious reasons).
DeleteWe believe that the Christ-Church mathematical deacon would have understood the illogic and absurdity of Sedelandia. Hence he remains our emblem.
Now you even call him "Reverend".
DeleteAnd yet he couldn't understand the illogic and absurdity of Protestantism?
Yes, we do call him "the Reverend Mr. Dodgson," for that was his style as an ordained Anglican deacon. It is a matter of formal correctness, not a confession that those orders are valid.
DeleteYou should note that his father, a High-Church country parson, inclined to Anglo-Catholicism and was an admirer of John Henry Newman. Although it's not known for on which side of the Tractarian dispute the son fell, he may well have thought that he, too, was Catholic. But we'll never know.
Nonetheless, we'll honor his title, just as we would refer to the archbishop of Canterbury knowing full well his orders were null and void. It's merely a question of social and historical accuracy.
Pistrina Liturica.Are you aware of a priest that was trained by the SSPX and then jumped ship to CMRI back in 1995 and ordained by Pivarunas in Feb 1996 left Mt St Michaels within 3 months and took a nun to work with him at a Church not far from MHTS.He claims to now reject sedevacantism but became a bishop via a Old Catholic Line.He posted a number of eye opening articles on his column back in 2007.A friend of ours has copies of them.One was called cracks in the masonry and Mt St Michael-Fountain of Tradition.He did not say much in his last sermon at the Mount in fear of how Piv was trash his good name like he did to Father Vailicourt.One thing about this priest is he has a Degree from a university in England.A former Anglican.We wondering if he has got many former Pesthouse faithful.
ReplyDeleteNo, we haven't, but we'd like to read his articles. As we've said before, we aren't up to date about the CMRI, and so anything you can do to enlighten us would be welcome.
ReplyDeleteWe're glad he had sense to leave.
He is at Spring Hill,FL.We will ask our friend to scan and email those things to you.
ReplyDeleteWhen Kerfoot left the Mount.Piv gave all the faithful a letter saying how sad it was that he went and to that he signed his leaving letter with just Louis.Our parents were boiling at the complete lies.It was a known fact what had been going on for years and as the "superior" did nothing.As a matter of FACT,since Piv has been in charge,there has been a massive decline in Nuns,Brothers,etc.Our parents and us walked with our feet and never went back.
Yes,good people.Buy and read Sherri's book available from Amazon.A real eye opener but also very sad.
ReplyDeleteDitto.
Delete