Saturday, February 20, 2016

DISORDERED ORDO II


The contempt of good reputation is called impudence. Hobbes

It’s time for February’s installment of our continuing exposé of the howling errors and head-smacking stupidities in Dannie’s ORDO 2016. In the four previous posts on this subject, we concentrated on technical details that may have been too obscure for non-specialists to appreciate. In reparation (a term so beloved of the cult masters  — as long as they don’t have to make it), today’s post will provide a welcome break by bringing to light two hilarious idiocies anyone can understand.

Why “hilarious” (one of Checkie’s favorite words)? Because the goofs are so thoughtlessly dumb that you have to laugh out loud at the frustrated pretentiousness.

I. TROUBLE WITH TERMINOLOGY

Before His Insufficiency took down the page on SGGResources schlepping the dead-on-arrival “LITURGICAL ORDO 2016,” he advertised his

Ordo 2016 Universal Edition.

As the Church understands the word in this context,  “universal” means the absence of local observances particular to individual dioceses or religious orders. Yet in Deacon Dan’s incompetently compiled disgrace of a “universalordo, we find on page 9 at January 15 a liturgical note about the feast of Our Lady of Prompt Succor celebrated in the diocese of New Orleans! 

Perhaps His Deficiency doesn’t understand what the word universal means in Roman Catholic parlance?.

Dannie (or one of his dribbling proxies) may object to our criticism by arguing that the SGG ordo helpfully recorded an American practice, as it did with the feast of Isaac Jogues and companions (Sept. 26, for all U.S. dioceses). If he dares to defend himself, we would in turn demand to know why "One Hand" didn’t include the liturgical directions for the office and Mass of the feasts of the principal patrons of every U.S. diocese.* That would at least have been “universal” for the good, ol'  U.S. of A.

But the New Orleans flub isn’t the only tell-tale sign that the SGG pinheads don’t understand the liturgical sense of universal. All throughout this cluttered, illegible, hot mess, we find, under the name of numerous feasts, italicized annotations for other local feasts kept in the United States, like Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (Nov. 27, Brooklyn) and St. Catherine of Genoa (Mar. 22, with differing Mass texts depending on the diocese). By even a child's reckoning, then, this definitely isn’t a universal ordo!

What makes it all the more amusing is watching brassy Dannie trying so hard to impress everyone, but like luckless Tony Baloney he always ends up making a fool of himself. The humor is almost slapstick: These bums should call themselves the " Keystone 'Clerics'" and take this comedy of errors on the road.

II. INSUFFERABLE INSOLENCE

Dannie’s ignorance of the meaning of universal admittedly arouses at most a chuckle (along with a contemptuous sneer). For a real thigh-slapping, belly laugh you have to go to October 17 where you’ll find this screamingly funny note:
Cras prohibetur Consecratio Episcopi (SRC 4 April 1913) (“The consecration of a bishop is forbidden tomorrow.”)
When we saw the line, we burst into hysterical laughter. Have you ever seen such naked effrontery in your life?

This pint-sized, impudent clown, who was “consecrated” without an Apostolic Mandate and in flagrant violation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, has the gall to assert an SRC ruling! You’d think he wouldn’t want to bring attention to his own unlawful (and dubious) orders. Or maybe he’s trying to get people to believe he’s the Church in exile. Or, on a more somber note, could it be that the consecration of the new bishop-to-be had been slated for October 18, and he hoped to postpone it? (Not that this or any injunction would stop any sede claim-jumper from poaching a miter if that’s the day he’s scheduled to pocket his illicit orders.)

When Wee Dan retires after the big, bad, new bishop takes over dying Tradistan, he should audition for Comedy Central. We're told those audiences love chutzpah.

. . . . . . . . . . .

A Meditation on Error

For decades the impertinent cult masters have been passing themselves off to simple traditional Catholics as scholars, theologians, liturgists, canonists, and, worst of all, gourmets. Thankfully that sleazy era is swiftly coming to an inglorious end.  On every front, professionally educated Catholics who have genuine knowledge are showing Trad Nation that Dannie and Checkie are definitely not the churchmen portrayed in their misleading self-promotion efforts. At long last, they’re getting the national and international reputation their antics have earned for them, now that they themselves have torn down the firewall between all the hype and the truth. 

One of the most vigorous unmasking efforts has been undertaken by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, as we reported on January 16 . Since that post, Erroneous Antonius has taken to the back alleys of YouTube in a failed effort to counter the well-framed, elegantly composed arguments of these two gentlemen. As usual, Tony Baloney recycled his shop-worn ploys and dodgy tactics to convince (unsuccessfully, we imagine) his few spastic fans that he has the upper hand in the fight.

This time, however, he’s bitten of more than he can chew. (These guys are pounding him, and everybody's talking about it.) To what must be the Cheeseball’s most bitter regret, these two solidly informed Catholic laymen refuse to allow him to get away with his customary shenanigans. Their most recent exposé of Checkie’s pathetic, error-filled video responses is a masterpiece of scholarly rebuttal. (Click here for the wholly delicious "slice-and-dice" job.) If you haven’t the time to read the full article now, at least read the first three paragraphs and then the last two. Also take a look at the stills of Checkie captured from his amateurish video: those images alone ought to teach that trouble-making dilettante not to play nasty on YouTube.

By any standard of reckoning, it's evident that the laity must to stop funding these guys’ moronic pranks, whether it’s brash Dannie’s ordo or Phony Tony’s comical misadventures in theological disputation. Both Pistrina and Messrs. Salza and Siscoe have ably demonstrated that Wee Dan and the insolent Cheeseburger have brought nothing but shame on the sede cause.  Owing to their now uncovered ineptitude, the cult masters have forfeited all respect. They have rightly earned the contempt of any right-thinking Catholic.

It’s time to tell these novices good-bye and good riddance.

*We can’t refrain from observing that on Dec. 12 Dannie's birdbrain compiler includes a liturgical note on the Mass (only!) of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of Latin America. There’s not one, single mention of the American archdioceses and dioceses where this feast was kept, viz. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Tucson, and  shame on you, "One-Hand Dan"!    Santa Fe, New Mexico, His Vagrancy's beloved luxury vacation getaway-from-the greasy-Gerties retreat. (How did he miss that one?)  Likewise cheeky Dan is seemingly unaware that this feast was also  celebrated on November 16 in the Province of New Orleans. (Oh, yes, that's right! Nov. 16 is Saint Gertrude the Great. No wonder Dirtbag Dan forwent a missionary junket to "the City Different" and kicked the Big Easy to the curb. ) But, SGG Day aside, consistency has never been the hallmark of the brazen-faced cult masters except when it comes to scavenging for more and more money.

Yet we all know the real purpose for mentioning the feast was to sell copies of this monstrosity in Mexico (though we bet he “gave” the priests a copy free of charge to promote himself). So, the question is:  if he was trying to impress our good neighbors south of the border, why didn’t he use the correct Latin liturgical title for feast?
Dannie’s ORDO 2016 only reads BMV De Guadalupe, Patronæ Americæ Latinæ, whereas he should have styled it Apparitio (or [Festum] Apparitionis) BMV de Guadalupe, Patronæ Principalis Reipublicæ Mexicanæ, Insularum Philippinarum et totius Americæ Latinæ.
The answer’s easy: Dannie doesn’t know these things. It’s all for show. Anyway, he couldn't imagine anyone would have noticed.

 But the Reader did.


51 comments:

  1. This r&r thing of insisting beyond belief that the conciliar popes have all been valid and true popes but then disobeying them 100% of the time, rejecting their magisterium, liturgy, living as if they don't even exist and not being subject to them at all, is just downright insane and practically useless.

    You insist they are valid popes and for what? For NOTHING, since you are 100% not subject to them and reject their authority.

    Their irrational hatred on sedevacantism, which is a rational and logical position, seems to be of the devil.

    When all is said and done, after all their huffing and puffing, if someone then tells them "ok, you say they're all valid popes; can I go read ut unum sint then?" They will scream back even louder, NO.

    No? So why do you ceaselessly insist they are true Popes? For what? If you decide for yourself what is or isn't Catholic? HYPOCRITE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our citation of these gentlemen does not indicate on which side of the dispute we lie. We reference them to show that Anthony Cekada should not be the spokesman for the sede cause: he's not up to snuff, as is plain to see.

      Delete
    2. It's quite clear you have a personal bone to pick with Fr C and Dolan (scorned ex?). And what's with trying to remain diplomatic in the dispute that concerns Church fundamentals anyways? I think that's almost as cowardly as using a pen name to run a blog primarily used to criticize others

      Delete
    3. The bone isn't personal. It's based objective considerations, as we've indicated throughout the years of this blog.

      And we're not posing as diplomatic. We freely admit we don't know the answers to the profound questions raised here. But we do know for certain that the answers can't come from the malformed cult masters.

      Delete
  2. No, I think rejecting the Apostolic constitution of the Church as established by Christ for a gaggle of untrained vagrants who are only good for Jerry Springer-like cat-fights and spiritual terrorism - it is that which "seems to be of the devil."

    I would not risk my eternal salvation for the nonsense that untrained charlatans have to say on YouTube.

    Also, I have learned that some sedevacantists who accuse people of "hypocrisy" and being of the devil, have not even read one paragraph from the documents of the Second Vatican Council (outside snippets from the clerical propaganda). So, ultimately, such people do not even know what they are rejecting. Obviously they have no idea what kind of men they have chosen to follow in their "ecclesial limbo."

    Pristina Liturgica is right: the traddie-landia of Checkie and such other misfits is little else than kitsch, with, however, calamitous consequences for souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be sure, the rise of these men is a calamity for the faith. May this be the beginning of the end for their repulsive cult.

      Delete
    2. Not every SV is in allegiance with the cultmasters, and they aren't even the first proponents of SV or the first ones who suggested the position. As far as I understand, they weren't SV at one point, but rejected it.

      Cekada being perhaps the most famous SV or the apparent face of it, is accidental and not every SV sees him as these things. I don't.

      And what do you mean by rejecting the Apostolic constitution of the Church?

      I have read several of the Vatican 2 documents in full; Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, and parts of Gaudium et Spes and parts of the others. These are the most quoted and implemented. I have also read the entire new catechism.

      Delete
    3. Ah, you are one of the good ones, Anonymous 1:14 AM.

      By rejecting the Apostolic constitution of the Church, I mean the error that some sedevacantists have embraced regarding a Church without a hierarchy of successors to the Apostles, since people like Checkie claim all the bishops lost the "cura animarum." In addition to denying a current successor of St. Peter, such sedevacantism denies that all the Sees of Christendom have occupants. That leaves them with conflicting groups of acephalous vagrants bereft of ordinary jurisdiction and Canonical office/mission. It is a pseudo-Church which they have embraced, a John-Hus-like invisible communion of the faithful.

      When I was a sede, I heard the same ol' line: "It's Christ Who is leading us now, we don't need a Pope." Luther or Hus could have answered with that very line. Then they quoted the famous line from the prohibited fabrication that is cited often as the "Secret of La Salette:" "Rome will become the seat of anti-Christ." Or, sometimes, they come up with end-times theories and spurious prophecies. That is why a number of people who grew up in sede-land, like me, have renounced sedevacantism.

      To be fair, not all sedevacantists embrace such errors. Furthermore, some extremists in the recognize-and-resist crowd also undermine the Apostolic constitution of the Church by refusing to submit to their local Bishops. So, ecclesiological errors are not exclusively proper to the sedes.

      Delete
    4. Are you saying you went back to the Novus Ordo and are now subject to your local bishop?

      What I have read about that La Salette prophecy is that it was first approved then later forbidden under Benedict XV. It seems to be consistent with what has happened since V2, since Rome has indeed lost the faith and the true Church has been eclipsed, but private revelations like these aren't necessary to prove SV.

      I don't reject the constitution of the Church. Obviously what is going on is that all the bishops are modernists and some even apostates. The couple who are hailed as traditionalists, such as Schneider and Burke, are still modernists themselves and accept ecumenism for example.

      I don't know which sedes would say they "don't need a Pope". What I have read is that they would all like it for there to be one but the last 6 have been modernists of course.

      Delete
    5. Anon 2/26 1:46 AM, perhaps it would help this discussion if you could mention a name of someone whom you hold to be a member of the hierarchy, and we could go from there.

      Delete
    6. Nostrae Aetate is anti-christ as is Lumen Gentium.
      There is no need to read all of V2 based on these 2 documents.
      Personally,I hold the sede position but realize it's not perfect.
      The R&R and Novus Ordo make even less sense.The SSPV seems the most logical way.(Just don't say anything about the situation and live Catholic)

      Delete
    7. Oh yes I forgot to say that I have also read Lumen Gentium too. I am anon 1:44.

      Delete
    8. Anon 2/22, 2:46 pm:

      "Sedevacantism" would never deny the existence and permanence of the hierarchy in the world. The term itself explains its meaning, that the "seat is vacant."

      Anyone that goes beyond that and professes that the hierarchy is entirely ended is spouting heresy, sedevacantist or not.

      The two propositions must not be conflated as they are separate assertions, that are in no way connected.

      Delete
    9. If there are members of the hierarchy in the world, who are they?

      Delete
    10. All of the bishops who have the apostolic succession and have not lost the Faith.

      Delete
    11. Gene, do you mean that sede bishops belong to the college of bishops?

      Delete
    12. Great. We didn't think so (you're too good for that), but we had to ask, just for clarification.

      Delete
    13. "All of the bishops who have the apostolic succession and have not lost the Faith."

      Yes, but who?

      Delete
    14. "I would not risk my eternal salvation for the nonsense that untrained charlatans have to say on YouTube." — A guy risking his eternal salvation for the nonsense that an *anonymous* untrained charlatan writes on this blog.

      Delete
    15. Gene,please name us a bishop who fits your definition.

      Delete
    16. Anon. Feb. 25 7:46 PM

      At least we have earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees from accredited universities, and one of us has studied all three sacred languages under credentialed professors.

      Moreover, we blog about facts grounded in evidence, not in our imagination. So you'll find no charlatans here. We invite you to gaze into the mirror for that image.

      Delete
    17. To anon. 2/27, 12:50pm:

      It is not my definition that matters, I am a nobody. It is the teaching of the Church that matters. You can find bishops that have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession here: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html

      Delete
  3. I just read the "Bishop's Corner" where he reports that he cancelled a Mass because no one came! He goes on to say, "Let us make reparation for the violation of Sunday.", as if the people missed Mass. Did it ever occur to him that maybe they went elsewhere? If they didn't, because they couldn't risk taking children out in a storm, and/or dangerous icy roads then there was no obligation. Correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely correct. These cult "clergy" are always making unwarranted conclusions. But we know this is code for, "Let us pray these people return with their missed collection money."

      In the Cinci area, there are so many traditional Mass centers where people can fulfill the Sunday precept. It makes sense that on some foul weather days, they might opt to attend a chapel closer to home. And that scares Dannie to high heaven. So it's better to accuse them of sin (although the distance many of these people have to travel would excuse them even on a sunny day).

      Another example of naked manipulation.

      Delete
    2. I thought the mass had value even if no-one came (?) i.e. N.O. is the one stating need an "assembly".

      Delete
    3. In Tradistan, it has no value unless there's a full collection. It's scandalous that the couple of people who braved the elements to show up were sent packing. One of those clowns could have said a Low Mass without a sermon in less than 30 minutes and then sent these folks on their way.

      Delete
    4. Our priest celebrates Holy Mass daily even if no one is there.He isn't SSPX,novus ordo,or related to the OH/FL group's.

      Delete
    5. The group's what? Possess what, in other words?

      Delete
    6. OH/FL group's i.e. Dolan Sanborn etc

      Delete
    7. Anon 2:53 & 3:37!!!
      's means possessive. What you wanted was "groups" (plural).
      Otherwise, what you're saying is that the group possesses Sanborn!

      Delete
    8. Anon 10:10, are you criticizing someone's grammar when you can't even write the correct time? I think you were referring to 3:47 since there is not a 3:37.

      Delete
    9. Anon 10:10 I corrected, so the meaning would be clearer. You have a problem with that?

      Delete
    10. Thank you for correcting my Grammer.

      Delete
    11. Anon 10:25: You're welcome, but it's grammar. I'm not 'criticizing' you - I'm correcting you so that you will learn and people will see that you are educated and will pay attention to what you have to say.

      Delete
    12. I'm not educated nor should people pay attention to me or what I say.
      However with that said,thank you.
      (No offense taken)

      Delete
  4. This may be out of your area of expertise, but I heard Sanborn stating he had a seminarian at MHT that he was teaching in Russian. Seems to me would be better off teaching in Latin (i.e. having a common Latin requirement), but perhaps Sanborn is so talented (?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the many defects of MHT is that the teaching is done in the vernacular rather than in Latin. To be sure, to teach in Latin means you have to know Latin well, and that's obviously not the case.

      If Big Don is teaching that kid in Russian, then heaven help the laity who will have to depend on the young man for the sacraments.

      Delete
    2. Sanborn knows a multitude of languages.

      Delete
    3. or at least claims to know a multitude.

      Delete
    4. Are there any seminaries today which do teach in Latin?

      Delete
    5. We don't know of any. Too much work for the so-called "professors."

      Delete
    6. I don't imagine the students would do well either, since there are no minor seminaries left to sufficiently prepare them for a Latin-only program.

      Delete
    7. Well, they could imitate what was done in the Roman universities and write out the lecture in Latin, so the students could follow along or review. They could also practice speaking Latin on all occasions and build in time for conversational Latin labs rather than make the "sems" perform KP. In a short time, this immersion method would yield fluent speakers and listeners.

      But first the "professoriate" would have to get up to speed. And as you've seen on these blog pages, they have a lot of catching up to do. It's probably impossible. We mean, when a class schedule reads tempus rather than hora, you've got BIG problems. Besides, the "professors" (LOL) appear to prefer wasting time making YouTube videos, jabbering away on TRR, or making trouble.

      To operate a genuinely Latin seminary, the staff and administration must commit themselves to living a life surrounded by Latin. That means painstakingly reading approved authors in all the sacred and related sciences and studying their manner of expression, mastering their vocabulary, and practicing on one's own. You can't do that when you're surfing the 'Net, picking fights in the vernacular, or promoting yourself on TRR.

      Delete
  5. I also thought it was odd that when asked about how to make donations to the seminary, he said, "Just make the check payable to 'cash'."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not a Sanborn fan, but you can't be serious. He is too intelligent for that.

      Delete
    2. It was on one of those radio programs-maybe 2-3 (?) years ago (when first started)--you can go back and check it out (just have to listen to the end). Almost 100% sure "Francis Watch". Could think he is naive/lazy (not diligent, doesn't want to waste time)/arrogant, but still shows questionable judgment esp for one calling himself a bishop. Even though listened to the program thought it was questionable for priest and/or bishop to be discussing pope, Church and grave issues that involve the salvation of billions of souls in such a jocular (like a political talk show/ debate) manner. Now you see Cekada criticizing Louie Verecchio & Hilary White for the same things.

      Sometimes seem more to be rejoicing in evil (i.e. all these bad things have the good thing of proving they were right all along to hold their position & also gives them a chance to publicize themselves & convert others to their position).

      Delete
    3. You have to pay for those programs now, and I wouldn't give a dime to those people.

      Delete
    4. Ditto.

      Plus any forum that posted Uneven Steven McKenna's shockingly bogus exposition of the Summa (See our post of Sept. 6, 2014, "On a Wing and a Prayer") wouldn't merit an audience even if its content were free.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 3:07, which Cekada video has him criticizing Hilary White for her "jocular manner"? (I wasn't aware she had one.)

      Delete
  6. Thanks for great post. I like it very much!

    words starting with..

    ReplyDelete