Saturday, December 5, 2015

NOCIVUS ORDO CLERICORUM


... for we must never offend against grammar. Lord Chesterfield

Editor's Note: A hot new rumor from Europe has His Peripateticality visiting London, England, later this month. Accordingly, we felt it nessary to publish the following rather longish, technically detailed post before Yankee Doodle dandy comes to town a-begging without Tony. Just in case there's substance to the scuttlebutt, we want everyone, especially the English who should know better than to traffic with malformed American cult masters, to realize cult clergy are not the real thing. After today, our English brethren may disinvite this apostle to their most bitter future.

The bumbling clerical sad sacks at Cult Central, U.S.A., are at it again: laboring mightily without success to exceed the extremely limited grasp of their pitiful formation. They claw after unattainable prestige, yet always end up failing miserably, as you'll learn once more in today's post.

Last week we saw where the SGG cult is proudly offering for sale its own ordo (pl. ordines), the annual calendar in mostly abbreviated Latin with instructions for the daily recitation of the Breviary and the celebration of Mass. "One Hand" has made a big to-do about the effort: he's bursting with pride, as, indeed, is the whole clown crew. (You can read all about it here.)

You'd think they'd've made sure there were no howling errors on the pages they selected to preview (viz., the cover, the key to the abbreviations, and the first page of January 2016). After all, why give us demon rascals at Pistrina a chance to rip it apart and shame the "clergy" in front of a jeering Trad Nation?

But you see, they can't help it. Even when they've got  -- right in front of their foolish faces -- copies of old ordines from the '20s, '30s, '40s, and early '50s, they're so malformed they can't keep from making mammoth linguistic blunders. That's why, starting today, we're launching a recurring series of posts over the next year to expose all the errors we've found in the cult masters' latest embarrassing effort to pass themselves off as authentic successors to Catholic practice (and then hilariously prove to everyone that they're not).

For Pistrina's first installment, we'll focus on the cult masters' perennial problem: L-A-T-I-N.

On the cover, we read the following grand title:

ORDO 2016
Ecclesiæ Sanctæ Gertrudis Magnæ
Archidiœcesi (!!) Cincinnatensis.

We'll have more to say about the content of this imposture at the end, but for now we observe how these sede morons have used the groaningly wrong form for the genitive singular of the Latin word for "archdiocese." The Latin nominative archidiœcesis is (a) feminine and (b) third declension, so its genitive singular ends in -is, not -i. (Archidiœcesi is either dative or ablative singular.) That means Dannie's cover page should've read Archidiœcesis Cincinnatensis. The only reasonable conclusion we may draw is that the cult "clergy" must think the word is second declension, the genitive of which is -i. (We rule out the possibility of its being a simple typo because this is the cover page, for heaven's sake: they would have tried their level best to proof it. Don't you agree?)

The pinhead compiler(s) -- the Forlorn Finn (along with Checkie Cheeseball)? -- who surely had a copy of an old Cincinnati ordo to consult, must not have noticed (or understood)  the correct form printed thereon: "ORDO... IN USUM Archidioecesis Cincinnatensis." The pompous buffoon(s) who drafted this grammatical mess went to all the trouble to spell the word with the optional ligature œ (which an old Cinci ordo in our possession doesn't use), yet couldn't get the correct morpheme. Why be elegant when you can't deliver on the most important element, to wit, the grammar.

Are these unschooled jokers first-class losers, or what?!

Now when we turn from the cover to the text of the ordo proper, right there on the very first page, on the very first day of the new year, we find another ear-priercing howler in the note at the bottom of the Jan. 1 cell:

 ...in loco Missa (!!) votiva (!!)....

In standard rubrical Latin, the phrase "in loco" (or loco) meaning "in place" is followed by a genitive (i.e., "in place of the votive Mass etc."). Therefore, the forms should have been Missae votivae, not the nominative or ablative singular, as these Latin-less goof balls have printed.  The blunder is i n-e x-c u s-a b l e. Over hundreds of years, books and journal articles on the rubrics always have always used the genitive.* If these perennial fortune's-fools had been conversant with any of the classic Catholic rubrical works, the form of the idiom would've been so solidly fixed in their little, pointy noggins that the error never could have seen the light of day. But both you and we know these Bozos aren't the real thing, are they?

The next entry on the same page, that of January 2, isn't free from a screaming howler either. Right off the bat we read in the second line

...ad unicam (!!) N...

According to the grammatical number of its modifying adjective, the abbreviation N, despite what the carelessly constructed abbreviation key** tells us, signifies "Nocturn," a singular noun, thank you very much. The Latin equivalent is nocturnus, a second-declension masculine noun. But the SGG cult blunderers must not know the word's gender because the adjective they print, unicam, is feminine. Someone who knew elementary Latin would have printed "ad unicum N[octurnum]." But obviously Dannie's boy(s) mustn't know basic Latin.

Compounding the botch is the fact that an ordo compiler doesn't need very much Latin to begin with. (That's good for the cult clergy!). The actual text can be copied from old ordines published in the good ol' days. (They used boilerplate then, too.) Therefore, all you need is someone with rudimentary Latin so you can proof the copy for transcriptional errors like, say, typing unicam for unicum. (Maybe Tony Baloney was the proof reader here, which explains the lapse.)

There's no excusing this mistake either. Agreement of adjectives and nouns with respect to case, number, and gender is one of the earliest lessons in first-year Latin. But, of course, if you don't know the gender of the noun modified, then the erroneous unicam would look fine, wouldn't it? We mean, at least it's the right case after the preposition ad. In the malformed, sloppy sede cult masters' challenged minds, one out of two isn't bad at all and, in fact, is far above their customary performance.

Beyond the shockingly erroneous concord lurks another, more serious problem, a problem that impeaches the usefulness of  Dannie's ordo, especially for the cult's own "priests." Among the chief objectives of an ordo are (1) to make it easy, in as few words as possible, for the user to find what he must recite and (2) to minimize the possibility of reciting the wrong element.

Let's see how the Gertie ordo stacks up against those criteria. The entire instruction translates as follows: "At the sole Nocturn, the lessons and the responsories [are] proper." At first blush, we have to say that this is hardly better than many of the pre-Pius X ordines, which laconically advised that the Office was proper.

Twentieth century ordines seem to give a lot more guidance. For instance, the 1937 Columbus, Ohio, and the 1954 Cincinnati ordines were quite detailed, even more detailed than those of St. Paul, counseling that the first and second lessons with their own responsories were to be taken from the occurring Scriptural pericopes, but the third would come from St. Augustine's sermon on St. Stephen followed by the Te Deum. Such explicit direction made it almost impossible for an inexperienced, careless, or ignorant priest to read the wrong third lesson (viz., the one printed for an occurring Office of nine lessons). The contemporary 2010 ordo issued by the Saint Lawrence Press in England is similarly detailed in its direction.

In an age of virtually non-existent priestly formation -- so dark a time that one of Tradistan's "priests" in Michigan (the infamous MHT completer, Ozzie the Skipper) could forget the consecration at Mass -- a functional ordo must strive for exactness in order to prevent malformed sede clergy from erring. SGG's apparently cavalier inattention to modern circumstances bodes ill for what promises to be a very sloppy,  poorly curated, amateur effort. Why the cult masters, who pretend to be in the diocese of Cincinnati, didn't copy from the old -- and better executed -- Cinci ordines is a mystery.

That thought brings us back to the text of the cover page, which (after correcting the compiler's[s'] bad Latin) translates as 2016 Ordo of the Church of St. Gertrude the Great of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. O.K. Here we go again. We've said it before, but we guess it bears repeating:
The SGG cult center does not belong to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati because it was not erected as a moral personality in the Church: SGG was not built with the express written consent of the Ordinary, and the rectors of neighboring churches with an interest in the matter were never consulted. Since it was never erected in the archdiocese, SGG has no claim to any association with the Ecclesiastical Province of Cincinnati.
To be blunt, in spite of adopting the (rightly disputed***) label "Roman Catholic," SGG no more belongs to the archdiocese than do any of the heretic and schismatic "churches," the synagogues, the Mormon temples, and the mosques scattered throughout the Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area. Therefore, the ordo's title is not only grossly misleading (and ungrammatical), but also it's a further proof that these bumblers are just "playing church."

If their marketing strategy demanded they reference the archdiocese to which they do not belong, they should have described their ordo as based upon the former calendar and liturgical practice of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. That, however, would require an entirely different Latin text, the composition of which certainly lies well beyond their patently limited competence in the Church's official language. (We would do it in five words, omitting the "Church of SGG" absurdity****.)

There's only one conclusion: No one can have any confidence at all in His Presumptuousness's ORDO 2016. Permit us to re-emphasize an earlier point:  ORDO 2016's Latin should be error free.  Every syllable of copy needed to produce an ordo can be found in editions printed before the 1955 changes to the liturgy (and, truth be told, after, too). Old ordines are available from libraries, online sources, private collections, and booksellers, so there's no claiming lack of availability. That the errors we exposed today were allowed to stand is a condemnation of the whole cult crew and a witness to its abysmal malformation: these clerical cretins haven't yet begun to start thinking in Latin, as truly traditional clerics would.

Priests and laity would be wise never to consult Deacon Dan's ORDO 2016. Coming from the clownish cult masters, it's just not trustworthy. If you bought it, demand a refund.

* A one-minute search in Google Books yields a whole slew of examples, of which here are only a handful: loco Missae votivae SS. Trinitatis, loco Missae de Sta. Maria, loco Missae de Ssmo Corde, loco Missae de requiem, loco Missae solemnisloco Missae hebdomalis, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, (as Rodgers and Hammerstein's King of Siam might say).

** The first page of the abbreviation key (that's all the preview displayed) is the work of an unkempt mind deprived by stony-hearted Mother Nature of any sense of consistency or thoroughness. As an example: for N, which in our example above is singular, the key lists the masculine plural form ("Nocturni"), yet in the phrase we translated, the word lessons is abbreviated by "LL," although the key only shows one "L" against the singular "Lectio." (These guys are thoroughly confused, aren't they?)

Tidy intellects often follow the common abbreviation convention of using suspensions consisting of one letter for the singular, then doubling the single letter for the plural  (e.g., N = nocturn, NN = nocturns; L = lesson, LL = lessons). They also understand that abbreviations like this must be catalogued in the key for the user's convenience. Furthermore, the key must be complete; users shouldn't have to do the compiler's work for him.

But, as we said, that's what tidy intellects do; sloppy pea brains produce what you find on the SGG Resources page. Over the next year, we'll point out similar breaches of orderly ordo construction.

*** An urbane Italian observer once described SGG's practice with the attenuative cattolicastro, "Catholic-ish," as we might say.

****One day we'll share with you a real canonist's opinion of the liturgical title "St. Gertrude the Great."

76 comments:

  1. Espera un momento.

    Si Santa Gertrudis es una iglesia sedevacantista, esa significa que los sacerdotes creen que no ha sido un Papa en cualquier años.

    Si el Papa presente es inválida, no puede ser obispos porque se requiere un Papa para elegirlo. Si no hay obispos validos, no hay arquidiócesis porque se requiere un obispo que como antes, necesita un Papa.

    Esos obispos ahora que fueron consagrados sin haber elegido por el Papa no tienen jurisdicción. Entonces, no hay arquidiócesis.

    ¿Pues, como ellos pueden ser una parte del arquidiócesis de Cincinnati si en los ojos de los sacerdotes, básicamente *no existe* un arquidiócesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeje. Tiene ud. toda la razón. Pero a los sede-cultistas del sur oeste de Ohio no les importa la lógica ni cinco. Lo más importante es que aparezcan genuinos a los tontos que siguen dandoles plata.

      Delete
    2. Es la ley que cuando no hay un obispo, no existe arquidiócesis? Qué pasaba antes cada vez que se moría un obispo entonces?

      Me suena igual que a aquel argumento torpe de los que dicen que tiene que tiene que haber un Papa A TODAS HORAS sino no hay Iglesia.

      Delete
    3. Creemos que Carlos quiso demostrar como es de absurdo el argumento de algunos sedes de los EE. UU. Ellos se cambian cuando les conviene.

      Delete
  2. There are considerably better Ordos available on the internet for the pre-1955 Divine Office. For example, there is one available from breviary.net that subscribers can use or the one from divinumofficium.com. Both of them are error free and readily available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're very well informed. We can't fathom why Dannie decided to venture into this territory where he's bound to fail. We know they like to pretend they belong to the archdioceses of Milwaukee and Cincinnati, so they observe the respective local feasts. The simpler and less risky approach would have been to publish an addendum, which they could attach to a reputable ordo purchased elsewhere, with instructions to their "priests" to follow the local calendar when it differed from the Universal one.

      What they did was cost themselves a lot of work, and their errors will be exposed to the world. A man's got to know his limitations, as Dirty Harry once said.

      Delete
  3. A very interesting website.We have to make several comments.The sede "seminaries" of MHTS and Mater Dei are not accredited institutions of higher learning and anyone with a basic intelligence would run a mile from them.None of the "staff" have any doctorates to teach and from what we were told by several young men the diet at Omaha is basically crap while Bishop P eats other food in his rectory and often goes out at night.It is very typical of the leaders of Cults to be living a high life while their followers live poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The preparation of the "professoriate" at these "PlaySkools" is a scandal. We'd say many of the "staff" haven't been to a real college let alone possess an authentic academic degree.

      Just as bad as crappy food is an overly extravagant, "organic only" diet, paid for by the laity.

      Delete
    2. How is their "crap" food compared to what people normally eat in third world countries or in Africa?

      Delete
    3. We don't live in a third world country or Africa!!! And if you think that it's OK, then why doesn't the Bishop eat it also?

      Delete
    4. Send them to Florida! They will eat like royalty!

      Delete
    5. Anon. Dec. 8 9:55 PM took the words right out of our mouths! Especially about the (LOL) "bishop."

      All we can add is that we've traveled the third world extensively and been to several parts of Africa. Our experience was that the food was very fresh, well prepared, and flavorful. From what's been reported, that's more than some "sems" get.

      Delete
  4. Anyone know where Bishop P. goes at nite? How long is he gone & how late does he stay?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why is it that these sede priests are known for their luxurious lifestyle? You have to question religious that have an entitlement complex. Sanborn and Dolan are specifically named over and over for their love of expensive things. I would be embarrassed if I were known for these things as a lay person, let alone a religious!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is, you have a conscience and a true Catholic sensibility.

      Delete
  6. Yes,we would have to agree with the poor food at Omaha,it is crap.We always thought the 'seminarians' at Mater Dei would be eating good meals judging the large bulge on the stomach of Bishop Pivarunas.We were told he often eats at steakhouses.

    Yes,it is a crime how these sede scrum 'Bishops" live such a high life and get away with it.Keep up the expose Pistrina Liturgica.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. We're waiting for info on Dannie's rumored big trip to London, England. It'll be interesting to know at which hotel he'll be staying. If we find out, we'll post.

      Delete
  7. I would have to agree.Most sede bishops and priests are scumbags and thieves.To feed young men crap is just beyond words.Why don't people wake up to these wolfs in sheeps clothing.Yes the people who maintain this website,keep up the expose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll do our best to publish all the material we can. Some correspondence we must keep confidential, but new stuff arrives every day. Once we check it out and get permission to use it, we post.

      As we said above, feeding "seminarians" lousy food is terrible, but the opposite is just as bad. Why should "seminarians" eat better and more expensively than most of the laity who pay the bill? Perhaps one day we may be able to go into full detail.

      Delete
  8. Oh-my, the seminarians in Brooksville eat gourmet meals! Sanborn and Crew eat like a king and his court. This is well known around any trad circle! Hello..... http://thenouvellecuisine.com !

    ReplyDelete
  9. What about one of the seminarians chores being to stock the beer refrigerator?

    ReplyDelete
  10. How about someone ask about the over 40 parishioners who left at the same time because of Sanborn's arrogance and hell sermons!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ep, we've heard all these reports. Thanks for making them part of the public record. Keep 'em coming! People would be shocked if they knew what's going on there. Do any of you have any good tidbits about the "organic food" they serve?

      When those crud balls complete, they'll be spoiled little brats. We hope no one will take them so that Sanborn'll have to feed them in the style to which they've grown accustomed. The harts-working laity shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by "Sanborn's arrogance and hell sermons"? Sermons on Hell are bad now?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. You, sir, have obviously never met Sanborn if you have to ask that question. Priests are suppose to be humble, not arrogant wankers. No, sermons on hell are not bad, but condemning most people to hell on a continual basis is.

      Delete
    5. No, I've never met Sanborn.

      Condemning most people to Hell? Could you give a specific example?

      Delete
    6. Do you know how to download his sermons or newsletters? That's a goood place to start.

      Delete
  11. Yep, I'm sure you can ask the many former seminarians who were either kicked out or left. They can tell you about the upscale Thanksgiving meals, the meal critiques by Sanborn, and the beer refrigerator. Who pays for that? $5000 a year in tuition wouldn't pay for room and board there, unless someone is making up for it (like the parishioners!) If 40 people left, you would think he would change his fire and brimstone ways or at least try to relate to his parish! Maybe eating regular food and acting normal instead of being such a bugger would be a great start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why the laity have to cut back on all their donations. These guys need to be brought back down to earth. He doesn't change his ways because he's got well heeled, depraved fanatics who make up for whatever's been lost to defections.

      The meal critiques are a real laugh: Sanborn's just a Philistine meat-'n'-'taters man.

      Delete
    2. The laity following Dolan and Sanborn won't cut their donations. They have followed him to two and three different states because they think, through him, you will get to heaven. Neither one of those men will allow layman to control them or the money. It is completely obvious with the Arizona situation. The situation with the Church is a situation that they have exploited. They don't spend their time helping their parishioners get to Heaven. It is about prestigious ceremonies, the talks in Europe that attract less than 20 people (yet provides a nice vacation, don't you think?), the mexican trips, arizona retreats for their much needed rest, the seminary newsletters that discuss inmoralities or why the novus Ordo is wrong....hello!!!!! Who is reading these letters? The ones who already believe the novus ordo is a mess. Do you really need to keep hammering it in month after month?

      No, these men are in this for power. These men like to hear themselves speak. They love their books to be published because of their prestige. They love the good life. Remember when cekada wrote about people not being happy until dolan is working a second job at walmart (or some place similar)? Well, if they would cut their lavish spending, vacations, fine meals, nice cars, , etc. they wouldn't need to have a second job and neither would their parishioners!

      Delete
    3. You have described the situation perfectly.

      We know they'll always have some looney followers. We just want to persuade the intelligent few to get out now, and convince outsiders never to fall for their foolishness.

      Delete
  12. Hi there.Are you aware that a certain man called Robert Letourneau from Boston,MA is being ordained in Omaha this saturday(12th)He has only had 3 years "training"I am a former SSPX seminarian(2 years) and are shocked at the total disregard of these sede "seminaries" for pre Vatican Two standards.For Bishop P to make the claim they are following the 1917 code of Canon Law,the same courses and using the same books is totally dishonest.The pre Vatican Two standard is 7 years.This Mr Letourneau has had no other seminary formation(I obtained this infro from a former CMRI "seminarian" who attends my SSPX Church)we are sure you are well aware most of these men who attend Mater Dei/MHTS would be turned down by the SSPX/FSSP.No wonder there is so many horror stories about certain sede priests.Yes,I was advised that the conditions i.e meals,etc at Mater Dei is indeed crap.The boarding boys/girls eat the same food(if you could call it that)as the "seminarians".What a crime.It is very interesting to note that there was no pictures this year of the disgusting food being served up at the Fatima conference i.e the so-called banquet on Saturday night is salad with flavoured water.We don't say the food should be top gourmet but it should be what most people call normal.Yes,Pivarunas often when out at nite.

    These sede "bishops" talk about the day when the Church will become normal again.Even if things got better,they would never submit because they know they would have to return as laymen and also they like being their own mini pope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What these sedes do is an utter disgrace. And you're right, the SSPX/FSSP would never allow their men to be under prepared. As you note, if the Restoration were to occur tomorrow, the true Church would never permit these sedes to be members of the clergy.

      Delete
    2. A utter disgrace.3 years.How can anyone study for the priesthood in that amount of short time.There is indeed something very wrong and it is a scandal.I could never support CMRI now after what I have been reading.Why don't other young men come forward and tell more about their horror stories.I would not send any of my sons to a low life hole like that.

      Delete
    3. We send your call for the young men from all these seminaries to come forward with fresh horror stories.

      In our opinion, no parents should send their sons to either of the American hell holes, and no Catholic should support any of the organized sede cult-rackets with their self-interested "bishops." If the money were withheld, these places would collapse, and people could then rebuild under lay governance.

      Delete
  13. How many "seminarians" are at these places? How many are Americans? How many stay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't think there are many. CMRI probably has the most Americans. We hear attrition is very high.

      Delete
    2. We have worked out over the last seven years at least 24+ men not including men who visit for several days have left Mater Dei "seminary"We can not understand why Father Michael Oswalt is not hearing the alarm bells ringing and asking himself why do so many leave.We pray he has the courage to break from CMRI and go independent.Do you agree Reader with our comments.You must wonder why all these men leave.We also wonder how many of them now reject the sedevacantist position and the Cult leaders(mini popes).We have been wondering about this for quite some time.

      Delete
    3. Funny - I've been thinking of Fr. Oswalt. The only explanation I can think of is that he was NO & when he left there was pretty slim pickings. He had the good sense to realize that he needed to be conditionally re-ordained because he realized that his NO training was lacking. Since he's from a NO background, he probably thinks that all the CMRI nonsense is par for the course & where else could he go? I do believe that he is too young & inexperienced to be independent. He needs a strong, intelligent, spiritual Bishop and as you know they are in short supply. Unfortunately I also believe that when he left the NO he heard some bad things about the SSPX & that's probably why he picked CMRI. Let's pray for him that God continues to lead him to look into the SSPX. I am blessed to go to a strong SSPX church full of devout Catholics while Bishop Fellay guides us through these terrible times. Some people in & out of the SSPX think that Bishop Fellay is going to sell out to Rome but so far all their predictions have fallen flat. These are perilous times but so far the SSPX is staying the course. btw, I was in an independent church for years that was lead by a good older completely traditional priest that is now under a younger ex-NO priest when the older priest died. As good as the young priest was, he really, really needs a Bishop as he has some faults but he's his own master and the parishioners have no recourse. Some have bolted & now have to drive further to an SPPX church, others are now home-aloners & sadly some have simply given up & left the faith or joined non-Catholic churches. Long story short - I hope Fr. Oswalt finds his way to the SSPX and does not go independent.
      PS: This independent church has taken in a couple of ex-NO priests that really should have been re-ordained as they were/are sadly deficient (which they admit themselves!!) but never were sent off for additional training and so they stumble along making some egregious mistakes.

      Delete
    4. Yes,we agree with you and also pray Fr Oswalt finds his way to the SSPX.

      Delete
    5. Don't forget that there are some well grounded laymen who can guide a young priest who doesn't affiliate with the SSPX and remains independent. There're also some independent older priests who can help greatly.

      Delete
  14. Well said Reader.I once visited Mater Dei and was shocked and quite hurt at the rude and unchristian behaviour of the so called "rector"He had a habit of making derogatory comments about other "seminarians" in the "classroom" and clicking his fingers.Myself and other former "seminarians"would like to write a booklet about our horrible experience.It did wake us up and run a mile.There are other very grave problems that you would not permit us to put on this public website but the TRUTH will come out one day.Just watch.The whole group will come crashing down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We hope it all comes out soon. Catholics need to know how bad the situation is.

      We're watching with great anticipation.

      Delete
  15. Do you folks accept or reject the Holy Week revisions of the 50's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of us here accept them; a few of us will not assist where they are observed; a couple others are indifferent. What we don't do is fight amongst ourselves on this irresolvable issue.

      You see, we're "aliquid pravists," who won't let trivia divide traditional Catholics or distract them from the battle against Modernism.

      In addition, all of us here grew up with the Ordo Hebdomadæ Sanctæ Instauratus, so we don't believe it is intrinsically evil (although the liturgists among us point out the flaws owing to its slipshod recasting). Furthermore, none of us believes Pius XII defected from the faith. As a result, we leave the choice to each other's conscience or personal taste and remain friends.

      There are far bigger fish to fry, and this issue is a minnow in our book.

      Delete
    2. How can it be irresolvable? How can one take a position if there is no solution?

      Someone like me wants to know the full truth of the matter because I can't understand how a valid Pope could allow such modernist changes to be promulgated.

      Delete
    3. Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus replaced the Roman Missal for Holy Week and is of obligation for all who follow the Roman Rite.

      So how can you say some of you don't accept them and others are indifferent or that this is a trivial matter? Need it be said that rejecting something that is obligatory is a sin?

      Delete
    4. Both questions (Anons 12/9 12:55 & 1:05) illustrate why we, corporately, refrain from judgment on the matter. "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice lis set."

      Delete
  16. I'm saying a Catholic cannot quibble about the laws of a legitimate Pope, much less claim each one can choose what he pleases till further investigation, but instead must submit.

    Bearing this principle in mind, I ask how you justify yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On behalf of those of us who assist at the pre-1956 Holy Week rites, we note that we are laymen. If there is any censure (which is a question during the SV), then it falls upon the priest celebrating those rites.

      We also note that often the celebrants of the reformed rite are so poorly trained that they cannot interpret the reformed rubrics, making a disedifying mess. For instance, as Pistrina has reported before, there is one independent priest who loudly cleaves to the Pius XII reforms, yet on one Palm Sunday could not manage to say the the right Gospels at his second Mass of the day.

      Delete
    2. You mean that laymen are free to reject them? Where does it say this?

      Delete
    3. The reality of the situation today is, most lay people can't pick or choose between Pius X or Pius XII Mass centers. (SW Ohio is an exception.) Most want just a valid Mass as close to home as possible and quite frankly could care less about the differences anyway. So it's the priest who in fact does the rejecting, not the laity.

      Delete
    4. The comment of Ano., Dec. 8, 8:56 PM (“Do you folks accept or reject the Holy Week revisions of the 50's?”), could very well have been an “innocuous” inquiry about said “Holy Week revisions.” But if that “Anon.” and Anon., Dec. 9, 12:55 AM, are one and the same, then I suspect that the inquiry was not so much “sincere” as it was an attempt to “trap” Pistrina into “making a mistake.” The latter “Anon.’s” question was this: “How can it be irresolvable? How can one take a position if there is no solution?” (The comment was in reply to Pistrina’s answer that there were differing opinions about the Holy Week revisions, and that these differences were “irresolvable.”)

      What Pistrina obviously (and correctly) meant was that, in this time of no competent authority to resolve such issues (especially if one is a “sede”), that they can’t be properly resolved -- as are MANY questions that are irresolvable at this time (until such time that a true restoration takes place, when they can be properly decided). Secondly, why was “Anon.” asking Pistrina, anyway, to “play the theologian” and rule on an issue that can only be decided by a “competent authority” (none of whom exists in the SV, and none of which will exist, therefore, until the restoration)?

      “Anon.” obviously knew this GOING IN, and was merely trying to “trap” Pistrina (just as those Pharisees tried to trap our Lord into choosing between Caesar and God, so that they could condemn Him). If Pistrina had made a “definitive ruling” on the question, it would’ve been condemned for either giving the “wrong” ruling, and/or for setting itself up as an “authority.” And if it DIDN’T commit to any one ruling, it would’ve been condemned for being “non-committal.” Either way, it looked like an “entrapment” question.

      Lastly, Anon.’s question (about “Holy Week revisions”) had nothing to do with the article’s subject (about SGG publishing an Ordo) anyway, so why bring it up at all? Anon.’s comment seems to be a classic example of the “change the subject, and attack some tangent issue” tactic (and, also, of creating an argument, where none exists). If you want to argue your own pet issue, Anon., then wait until it’s actually BROUGHT UP in a Pistrina article -- or take it somewhere else for now, and stop wasting Pistrina’s time (and ours) with it.

      Delete
  17. I suppose it would be too easy to simply follow the old principle of Canon Law: Sede vacante nihil innovetur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's precisely why a few of of here hold that for those who believe the SV started after Pius XII, priests should say the Pius XII rite, in spite of its liturgical imperfections. In no way do some of us take seriously the cult's "contamination" argument. If the "priests" who advance it had lived in the 1950s, they would have said and recited the revised liturgy.

      However, insofar as we recognize that others may not share our views, we're willing to let sleeping dogs lie (except to expose the hypocrisy of the cult masters). Again, for us the issue of little import when compared against the bigger picture. By no means do we want to lose allies over an something that can't be resolved until the Restoration.

      Delete
  18. That's not true at all Watcher. I was simply looking for more information on this subject since I'm not satisfied by the answers I have seen.

    I didn't mean any of it as a "trap"; I really wanted to get to the bottom of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you can see from our replies, there may be several "bottoms" to this thorny question, and we all might not agree with each other.

      But that disagreement is largely academic, and by no means should it be allowed to pit traditional Catholics against each other. This responder has many friends who vigorously oppose the '56 OHSI, and we've had some lively interchanges, to say the least. Neither side condemns the other as non-Catholic, and we simply agree to disagree while remaining united in opposing Modernism.

      Until trads stop ripping each other apart over trivialities, the traditional movement will go nowhere. Just think what could be done if trads could unite on the defense of the faith. They could pool their strengths, stop duplicating work, and focus their attack. But since for many it's to their advantage to divide the faithful over technicalities, the movement is splintered and therefore ineffective.

      Take, for example, Dannie and the subject of this post. There are very competent ordines produced by people with advanced academic degrees, who have made a life-long study of the rubrics. Yet rather than use those, in spite of his and his collaborators' poor formation, he competes with the professionals by producing his own error-scarred edition. The result is something that can be ridiculed and that disgraces the traditional movement in the eyes of insiders and outsiders alike.

      Delete
    2. Yes I of course agree that this should not be something to be divided about, and I do know that some have condemned others for following the revisions and vice versa, and I don't agree with that.

      I never intended to imply that this should be a cause for division.

      Delete
    3. To Anon.: you must excuse us for reading more into your inquiry than was apparent. However, your continued interrogation of Pistrina sounded (to several of us) like “badgering.” And if you were merely “looking for information,” you went about it in a “vigorous” way. To several of us, your tone sounded “accusatory.” That being said, we are sorry to have offended you by misjudging your intentions. But having been “badgered” so many times -- by “commenters” whose “agendas” were willfully ULTERIOR and whose rhetoric is willfully incendiary – we tend to get understandably “gun-shy” when we suspect as such.


      Pistrina’s and/or “the Reader’s” responses to you were spot on: whether “this or that” Holy Week observance is used is not that serious of an issue – at least not serious enough to divide Catholics from one another. And one cannot say that a person following one protocol instead of the other is being “sinful.” As they said, there are “far bigger fish to fry” than worrying about which Holy Week protocol to use – or claiming (as the cult-masters do, for their own pet reasons) that one is “sinning” by following one vs. the other. As Pistrina rightly pointed out, the laity should follow whatever protocol that their own particular priest uses.

      I believe that our exchange has been constructive, and that we think that we now better understand each other’s position.

      Delete
    4. No, you're right, I went about it the wrong way, and it is I who should apologize.

      Sorry.

      Delete
  19. WHH is Checkie's life's work. He will never rescind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right. What we're trying to do is get a copy of the new edition. We want to see (1) if he corrected all the errors we pointed out and (2) if he acknowledged Pistrina for the great service we rendered him. If he did correct the errors we pointed out and didn't acknowledge his debt, then he deserves public reprobation.

      Soon we'll publish a post on this issue.

      Delete
    2. That's exactly what I want to know too.

      Is it out already?

      Delete
    3. "One Hand" has been advertising the new edition on his website, but from what he says it may not be available from Amazon. SGG may be the sole source.

      Delete
  20. How shocking.3 years so-called seminary training with CMRI and you are ordained.SHAME ON YOU BISHOP P.Your "seminary" should be closed down.You are dishonest claiming to follow the 1917 code of canon law regarding seminary formation,etc.Whatever one may think of Bishop Fellay of the SSPX,he would never allow this among his seminarians.Our family are also praying that Father Oswalt leaves CMRI and places himself under a good bishop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We hope this young man can find someone suitable to mentor him. Inn addition, we hope he has the good sense to see that his formation is lacking and that he must remedy all the deficiencies. We can't see that happening in Tradisdtan. He'll have to see if the SSPX will admit him to their seminary for several years so he can complete his priestly training.

      Delete
  21. Hey Pistrina.Checkie claims to be a canon law expert.Where is his JCD.He has had no training.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, ha, ha! He doesn't even have a licentiate. It's all been "independent study." He also has claimed to be a "professor of scripture," but where's his doctorate? As Bouscaren wrote in his commentary on canon law, "For teaching philosophy, theology, and canon law...those professors should be preferred who have obtained a doctorate in some university or faculty recognized by the Holy See...[and]...The requirement of a degree is more strict for Scripture than for the other branches. Other qualifications of the professor of Scripture are also much insisted on." A Wisconsin diocesan baccalaureate is not enough. (Pius XI wanted as a minimum a baccalaureate issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.) He's Greek-less and Hebrew-less. He once thought that Bar Tolmai (Aramaic for Bartholomew) was Hebrew (LOL).

      Tradistani seminaries are a farce. If they admitted their limitations up front, one could understand given today's crisis. But these guys pretend they're the real thing, and that's just not acceptable.

      Delete
  22. Speaking of 'peace & unity'---
    I've been on this earth many years & yet to this day I find things in the Mass that I hadn't really hadn't noticed before.

    For instance: We actually pray for peace & unity twice in the Mass. Do you know where?

    Answer: At the beginning of the Canon before the Consecration and then again after the Consecration & the recitation of the Lord's prayer and Angus Dei we pray again for peace and unity for good measure.

    I think we(myself included) have been just mouthing the words & not REALLY praying for peace & unity. We've taken a lot for granted, been negligent and not really PRAYING the Mass. If our bodies are in church but our hearts are far from Him, is it any wonder that He has turned His face from us? Would we be this inattentive to a king?
    As PL has pointed out - none of us know the mind of God in these terrible times. We need to leave it in His hands and pray & make reparation for all that is going on. Sorry if I sound sanctimonious but I had to get this off my chest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you see, guys, the reason that Tony thinks he’s an expert in Canon Law is that he probably has the word spelled wrong. He’s actually an expert in CANNON law (as in, shooting from the hip, with nothing but arrogance, intimidation, and “BS” to back him up). The other possibility, too, is that he’s an expert in CANINE Law – but that’s more “Big Don’s department,” because he barks more like a dog than does Tony!

      Delete
    2. Anon Dec 11 5:53 AM

      No, you don't sound sanctimonious. You're expressing the feelings of all good Catholics. Our problem is that the cult masters only want peace so that no one learns of their bad behavior and unity only under their control.

      Delete
  23. Perhaps the Holy Week services from the Carthusian Rite could serve as a meeting ground for those holding different views on those in the Trent Missal. The Carthusian services have the merit of a noble simplicity and were approved in the good old days. I often wondered why +Bugnini didn't just make a few adjustments to the Carthusian missal and voilà a rite acceptable to Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An interesting question. Perhaps like the cult masters of today, he wanted to experience the frisson of bold innovation. (You know, like the cult's abolishing the Leonine Prayers and replacing them with a pastiche of prayers for the day's saint, or concocting quasi-liturgical Xmas eve "lessons and carols." Or how about the invention of "pontifical miss cantata," the brain child of both the sede cult and the Modernists.)

      Delete
  24. Our priest celebrates the pre-1951 holy week.He said it's for a simple reason,session 7 canon 13 Council of Trent.He (priest) is sedevacantist but we parishoners are not required to be sede.His sermons are about the daily gospel,epistle,rejecting worldliness,the 7 deadly sins,etc..Once in a while he mentions post 1965 novus ordo and says it's in the Lord's hands and not to worry.Also,our priest lives like a modest spartan (he doesn't own TV or computer for one).Not all sedevacantist priests live in opulence.He encourages reading the Bible,catechism,praying the rosary,litanies,etc..and not getting caught up in "crisis in the church" arguments.Personally,I am sorry so many have had bad experiences with non novus ordo chapels.Seems like we are blessed with a Catholic priest who could care less about fame,influence,and is more concerned teaching us the faith.

    ReplyDelete