Out of the inner parts shall a tempest come.* Book of Job
So far, 2016 has been a rotten year for the SW Ohio-Brooksville cult.
In addition to unsuccessfully battling armies of invading rodents, Dirtbag Dan's had to walk back both his error-tarred ORDO 2016 AND his embarrassingly self-promotional "All Saints Roman Catholic Calendar," which doesn't have one image of a saint (except in the background of the grainy pix featuring untrained cult masters or their stooges). Meanwhile, on the internet, the Cheeseburger's being taken to a hard school as he repeatedly steps in his own doo-doo while simultaneously putting the rector in harm's way.
By any reckoning, just beyond the horizon there's a perfect storm brewing to wreck Cultilandia. "One Hand" may see a few gathering storm clouds, but he can't seem to chart a forecast. For instance, in last week's "Bishop's (?) Corner," His Shortsightedness wrote,
... last Lent we had weather every Sunday, and those who needed an excuse—some don’t, of course—stayed away from Church all Lent long. Last Sunday we were between snows, and it was cold. Many of you stayed home to be on the safe side. When the weatherman intones snow, people think Kroger, not church.Understandably, Wee Dan refuses to admit that nowadays the cult zombies will lunge at any excuse to stay away from dying SGG. When cultlings are content, almost nothing can keep them away from their creepy Mass centers. Kept happy, they'll cram their huffing womenfolk and sniveling bairns into the rusted family van to plow through any weather. They like nothing better than to plop their over-sized rear ends into a filthy pew for the "big show," with the promise of loads of empty-calorie grub afterwards.
But when they're out of sorts, any reason will persuade them to stay put on the ol' homestead. And excuses are easy to come by since "goin' ta meetin'" means sitting hang-dog through aggressive, accusatory demands for more money to bail the cult masters out of their bad financial decisions. Encouraging cultie truancy is the common knowledge that Dannie and Checkie together have become the laughingstock of Trad Nation.
His Insignificancy's announcement that Bonehead Tone has "started work on another video" isn't going to improve attendance either. Anyway, that's just Dannie-speak for "Tony Baloney is incapable of producing a well-reasoned, written response in academic prose to Messrs. Salza and Siscoe." Illiterate as they may be, the Gerties intuitively sense the Blunderer is trapped with no means of escape. As long as the bloggers at True or False Pope continue to dissect Erroneous Antonius's inanities, there'll be no spiritual comfort for the unwashed as the overcompensating Checkmeister descends into all-consuming YouTube mania. The attendant neglect and resentment will only add more energy to the oncoming twister.
If the advent of the looming catastrophe solely depended on overcompensating Dannie's or Tony Baloney's awkward missteps, our models would predict a much later cataclysm than we now anticipate. The atmospherics, however, have completely changed now that the Blunderer's impolitic fight-picking has sucked Big Don into the storm's path. For years the rector's been uttering, almost with impunity, countless absurdities about faith and morals. Much to his regret, Tradistan's media outlet, True Restoration Radio, has made the Donster's droning voice accessible to a wider audience, one that, for a change, includes intelligent Catholics.
Consequently, in what must assuredly be an unintended outcome of this PR campaign gone distressingly haywire, Big Don's crackpot theories are no longer hidden from view in the murky underworld of weird Tradistani websites and chapels, where unthinking rite-trash swarm like dung flies on a freshly manured field. With True Restoration Radio, Donnie's perversely re-imagined Catholicism presents a big, inviting target for professionally educated sharpshooters who can prove he's wrong. All they needed was sufficient reason to go after him, despite his small-time status.
Checkie's parasitic relationship with the rector and the MHT pesthouse handed the critics their opening. Recently True or False Pope squarely took aim and scored a bull's eye. In a marvelously argued post (click here), they affirm what Pistrina has been saying for years: Big Don "makes a mockery out of the Catholic Faith and the episcopal office itself. He should be shunned by all true Catholics." Take our word for it: Big Don will never recover from this tour de force analysis from someone with a disciplined intellect informed by deep reading and genuine Catholic faith.
There are two compelling reasons to recommend that you immediately read this game-changing post:** First, it shows precisely how alien the Donster's mind is to authentic Catholic thought. Never again will you believe anything Big Don spouts once you see how he reduced theological discourse to a cheap vaudeville mentalist's stunt. To earn a few extra bucks to alleviate his future indigence, the rector should hang out a shingle hyping
THE AMAZING "MONSIGNORE DONALDO"
Psychic Readings, Pseudo-Catholic Snake Oil, and Heterodox Hooey.
Second, and more interestingly, we suspect the post will hasten the fragmentation of Tradistan. Donnie cannot be happy that Bonehead Tone put him in the deadly accurate sights of the über-competent bloggers at True or False Pope. (Those guys are good! They're sovereign proof of the practical benefit of a sound, formal education.) The dislocation has surely jarred the rector's unearned sense of entitlement. After that post, the "Swami of Sedelandia" has to realize he's through. Like Garbo's depressed Grusinskaya, the Donster might be wondering at this moment who would trouble about a vagans who babbles fantasy theology no more. What will he do? "Grow orchids? Keep white peacocks?"
Naaaaw. He'll more than likely just consecrate his impatient successor and wait for his pink slip from the real boss.
As you read that terrific True or False Pope post, listen carefully. You'll hear the distant yet unmistakable roar heralding the whirlwind that will split the cult cabal in twain as soon as it touches ground at Dannie's ramshackle doorstep. If you'd like, you can speed its cleansing arrival by forwarding the True or False Pope link to as many of your friends and relatives as you can. For your convenience, here it is again, ready and waiting for insertion into your email or blog:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-why-bishop-sanborn.html
** "Game-changing" because, in this case, there is no credible defense for Sanborn's outlandish position. By his own words, he stands condemned without appeal.
Apparently Sis & Sauce don't think too much of Michael Davies either (nor the SSPX anymore since Fellay wrote the intro--guess the whole book is a set up for that "unilateral" recognition of the SSPX by Fran 'the true pope' of Fellay 'the true SSPX bishop'):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/salza-siscoe-new-rite-of-ordination/#.VtIm3PkrJUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4a0Szsawc&list=PLD841087C099E5B90&feature=iv&src_vid=kxF1y7QkQPI&annotation_id=annotation_2135090887
They disagree with Davies about one issue and that means they "don't think too much of" him?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo what? The point is they exposed Big Don's laughable mind-reading act.
DeleteExcellent article again Pistrina.Have you taken note not a word from Piv central at Omaha or Spokane.A utter farce.
ReplyDeleteYes, we have noted the ominous silence. If only it were permanent.
DeleteI'm not defending Bishop P nor do I belong to CMRI.
DeleteWITH that said,maybe he doesn't care about this book or maybe he is busy?
Just a thought,I'm not defending him.
We understand where your're coming from. Our guess is that books like this are beyond their understanding so they ignore them. Besides, no one would take seriously any comments they might offer. They aren't even the junior 'varsity team. In fact, they're not even at the Pop Warner level.
DeleteI'm not defending him nor am I being rude.Maybe he don't care as much about this book as others seem to be at the moment?
DeleteWow! I have never in my life read anything this flimsy in defense of sedevacantism! How long has he held this view or did he just now make it up? I had to read some of what he said several times to make sure I understood what he meant. Kinda hard to make sense out of nonsense!! Unreal!
ReplyDeleteSteven Speray recently made a few good rebuttals of Siscoe & Salza.(If such topics interest you,check his site)
ReplyDeleteFrom what we read, Mr. Speray didn't rebut S & S's exposure of the imaginative Donster's mind-reading act. We're certain this very competent gentleman, who argues his points without viciousness, would be just as appalled as everyone else is.
DeleteI simply meant Steven Speray made a few good responses to Salza & Siscoe.(sorry I wasn't specific and didn't mean to imply he was somehow defending Bishop Sanborn)
DeleteWhile Big Don's argumentation certainly is laughable and outlandish (and I wonder whether he ever studied the work of the Council's Preparatory Commission, which might actually say something about the Pope's intention), I can't fail to notice that he tries - and fails, of course - to employ the principles of the Cassiciacum Thesis to bolster his strange assertions. Mind you, the thesis has its foundation in the principles stemming from the metaphysics of authority. More precisely, it is the absence of the objective and genuine habitual intention of procuring the common good proper to the Church which implies the absence of authority. As stated, of course, it is the objective intention, not the subjective intention, which is manifested in the person's acts, as authority is by nature an exterior and visible reality.
ReplyDeleteIt might be a good idea to beat Sanborn on his own terrain, as he obviously neither understands theology nor philosophy and not even the thesis he claims to uphold.
The Thesis you refer to was written in the late 70's.It was a very early stage in the apostasy.The Bishop who authored the Thesis was one of the top theologians in the Vatican during the 1960's.
DeleteNot defending Bishop Sanborn but please realize the author was an educated priest who,just like everyone else in the late 70's,was trying to figure out exactly what had happened 10-14 years earlier.
Excellent analysis, Tarquinius, but far too informed and nuanced for any of the untrained American cult masters to understand. Besides, Big Don would probably rather be reading tea leaves than Catholic theology and philosophy.
DeleteDear Anon. 11:26 AM, maybe I wasn't very clear in my comment. My criticism was directed at Sanborn, not at the learned Guérard des Lauriers or the Cassiciacum Thesis, which certainly has its merits.
DeleteFor the Dominican, the question in regards to the Papacy of John XXIII. never even appeared, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, he even deemed the early reign of Paul VI. to be legitimate.
If Pius XII can wreak havoc in his last 7 year's as Pope,changing multiple aspects of the Faith,then John XXIII is fine.
DeleteI hold the sede position but it seems they hold John 23rd and early years of Paul 6th to a different standard than Pius XII.
Going on pure facts,Pius XII was the first progressive modern Pope. (Changing Holy Week,allowing lay lectors and the dialogue mass in 1958,changing the communion fast,allowing the Chinese and Austrians/Germans to use vernacular facing the people during Holy Mass,etc.)
Many who hold the "sedevacantist" position do not dare to question the laws of the Church as given by Pope Pius XII. Our duty as Catholics is to trust our shepherd, like a crew on a ship trusts its captain. If the captain order the ship to go north, the crew trusts his judgment, likewise if he goes south, east and west, or slows the ship, or chooses to dock in a certain port.
DeleteCatholics trust the Pope and follow his lead as he governs the Church.
The Holy Week revisions followed the same M.O. as what came later and the same people were responsible. So if you reject the latter, why not the former?
DeleteThe Holy Week changes of Pope Pius XII did not in any way contradict the theology of the Mass. The Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, his laws cannot be at odds with the Faith, as they are infallibly protected.
DeleteAlso, I don't buy the common assumption among some sedevacantists and R&R persons that the liturgical changes of Pius XII were part of a progression that led to the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo was a break from what the pre-Vatican II Popes were doing in the reform of the liturgy. It derailed the train from where it was going.
"The Novus Ordo was a break from what the pre-Vatican II Popes were doing in the reform of the liturgy. It derailed the train from where it was going."
DeleteGene, Which pre VC#2 popes are you talkin' about? Where was the train going? BTW, you can buy anything you want and you can follow anyone to hell, it's your soul. But need a bit more than your opinion to convince anyone else.
It really is not my job to convince anyone of anything, That is the duty of the hierarchy of the Church.
DeleteI am professing publicly my submission in letter and spirit to the laws as given by Pope Pius XII. I am also stating that I do no dissent in any way from the Pope or his laws.
With that said, Pope Pius XII was leading the Church to a change in the liturgical rites, and that was within his power to do this. None of his changes in any way deviated from the Faith.
The only correct attitude was and is to trust the Pope and follow his lead on where he was leading the Church. The other path is dissent and putting ones private judgment against that of St. Peter's successor.
Gene's exposed the stupidity of all the arguments that the liturgy Pian liturgy was mythically contaminated. Perhaps all the reforms were not thoroughly thought out, but many of the priests who disparage it today were brought up on it and they would have celebrated it had they been priests in the '50s.
DeleteLike many priest's from that era,yes they celebrated the post 1951/1955 Holy week at the time but,later recanted and celebrated the pre-1951 Holy Week in 70's/80's,etc..
DeletePersonally,I think every change in the 50's was wrong and essentially set the stage for novus ordo.
The tragic beauty of our era is we can agree or disagree.The official church is in apostasy.(Sedevacante)
Until we have a Roman Catholic Pope,these debates and disagreements will continue.
Gene,The Reader,I respectfully disagree and think we should go back to pre-1950 traditions as a starting point for unity.
Go ahead and disagree,I understand. However,my mind is made up and until further review,this is what I believe.
"über-competent bloggers at True or False Pope..."
ReplyDelete"Those guys are good!"
"They're sovereign proof of the practical benefit of a sound, formal education."
I thought you had standards, you "Readers".
For one thing, the in-your-face, over-the-top and ever-present grandstanding of the dynamic duo makes one cringe constantly and it makes one think these people must think lowly of whoever reads their material, since some of the things they say are just comical and flat-out wrong.
Your sudden blessing of this book and their authors seems shallow and utilitarian; it seems to me you're just acting as a parasite to get at the cultmasters, not that you really believe "those guys are good!", because they clearly aren't.
You should be ashamed to stoop so low to get at the cultmasters, Toth.
We're not at all shamed . They nailed that blowhard Sanborn good!
ReplyDeleteWe do have standards, and that's why we'll applaud anybody who exposes cant and error— even if they would be dyed in the wool, unreconstructed, Persian fire-eaters.
Relatively speaking, these guys are better than Checkie and Big Don. Whether you buy into their ecclesial position or not, you've got to admit they exposed those two poseurs. The Donster's remarks are indefensible, and slamming us for recognizing he got caught won't help your cause.
It's a sign of sophistication when one admits that his favorite horse got beat in a far-and-square race. Maybe you should tell your buddies to shut up and tend to the people who support them.
I don't support nor defend the cultmasters, and I do agree with some of the things that S&S say, but such empty flattery as yours isn't necessary and as I said, seems to come out shallow, forced and not genuine.
DeleteHave you read "The Chair is Still Empty" parts 1 & 2?
DeleteThose papers blow to smithereens any idea that these two blokes are "über-competent", "sound" or "formally educated".
They're a master class.
Their skewering of Big Don is masterly. That's not flattery: it's a fact. And possession of a J.D. is, by any reckoning, proof of formal (and professional) education.
DeleteAnon. 1 Mar. 2:11 AM
DeleteIf, as you assert, the "blokes" are less than able, wouldn't their deficiency make Sanborn's exposure all the more humiliating?
Having a J.D. means nothing in theology or reasoning, and in fact the Church has said there is always the danger for those with the J.D. to treat canon law like secular law, which is what Salza has done.
DeleteWe never claimed it did. We mentioned it as proof of formal education, that's all. (Although we would make the case that formal training in the reasoning of civil law is highly transferable to the study of canon law, and Mr. Salza is thereby light years ahead of the cult masters who have had no professional training in the latter discipline. At best, they had an introductory survey course, which doesn't make one a canon lawyer anymore than a general biology course makes one a physician.)
DeleteIn our view, canon law should be left to the specially trained — those individuals who have earned at least a licentiate from an approved graduate school of canon law.
DeleteFor an idea of what's required, click HERE.
Have you read The Chair is Still Empty or not?
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer.
Yes, we have — both parts, although not carefully. We thought it was a lively contribution to the debate.
DeleteDo you know if S & S have replied?
The reason for our cursory reading is that we frankly admit we don't know which side is right. For us, it's sufficient that both sides favor tradition and oppose modernism.
Moreover, while we enjoy reading well-written, well-researched, energetically argued defenses of informed opposite opinions (as long as they're free from the excessive name-calling that characterizes Checkie's drivel), we can't help being put off by the fact that none of the partisans is formally trained in theology and canon law. By that, we mean none seems to hold an advanced graduate degree in these areas from a Church-approved institution of higher learning, and none has been a teacher of AND a recognized, published authority on those subjects. (That is to say, recognized by fellow academicians and published in professional, refereed journals.)
True, some of the participants appear to be gifted amateurs, and some do have credentials from professional schools. And those who do are worth reading, if only to gauge the vigor and intellectual level of the discussion.
Although we enjoy watching the give and take of intelligent minds pursuing the defense of their positions, we refrain from assenting to either side because the persuasive authority that comes from the right kind of training is absent. What interests us the most, as you can guess, is when either side exposes the cult masters' ignorance and cluelessness.
In our view, Tony Baloney and the Donster have rendered the debate unseemly by their participation. Therefore, whichever side contributes to exposing their inanities deserves — and will receive — our applause. If the sede side were to expose the cult masters, we'd be just as enthusiastic as we have been with S & S.
Indeed, it's in the sedes' best interest to bar Cheesy and Donnie from the discussion. Their presence only lowers the intellectual integrity of the debate and debases the whole enterprise.
Perhaps both sides should pause and jointly declare the cult masters as personæ non gratæ. When that happens, our interest in the debate's content and outcome will surely improve.
Fr.Gommar DePauw was educated in advanced theology.He is good to read on issues pertaining to this discussion.
DeleteFr. DePauw indeed possessed the credentials necessary for a genuine discussion: bachelor in canon law, Triple Licentiate in canon law, moral theology, and Church history, a CUA Ph. D., professorship in an authentic Catholic seminary, and published author.
ReplyDeleteDon't you find it disgusting that today all the trads have is malformed clergy without any real training?
Honestly,we are blessed at the moment to have a decent priest.He actually spent time in novus ordo seminary's and left due to extreme evil taking place in those former catholic seminary's.
DeleteAt the moment,you're going to be hard pressed to find a priest educated like they were pre-1968.
It's our era,we are being punished for our sins and spiritual negligence.Our priest was,by the grace of G-d,discovered by a traditional minded bishop.His first 4 years were in novus ordo type seminary's.The last 3.5 year's he was educated by this bishop.Our priest isn't perfect but he lives in poverty and reads incessantly,educating himself in the faith.
I'm sorry everyone is having such a horrible time.Its not perfect in our area but it could be 50 billion times worse.
The only thing that truly deep down bothers me is the lack of coherent unity in the "traditional catholic" world.
Our priest has a rather simple idea that may galvanize others to some sort of unity but,neither he nor myself are holding our breath.
The formation isn't what it used to be, but your priest at least spent time in the "system," the formal organizational milieu that is still heir, despite many disastrous changes, to the Roman way of thinking and acting.
DeleteContrary to what the malformed cult masters would have everybody believe, many N.O. seminaries do have academic standards along with a formally educated teaching staff possessing advanced degrees. Moreover, the curriculum, though not the same in all instances, is rigorous and retains many elements from the past. Your priest's 4 years in the NO seminary provided him the the intellectual foundation and academic skills to study under your bishop.
Compare him to a cult priest who only attended a secular university and lived alone in an apartment as he independently "studied" with a busy pastor. Note, too, that the people paying for this farce had to resort to all sorts of trickery to get him to study. Had he been in "the system" beforehand, he might have been more serious.
The lack of unity you speak of is the result of bad actors in the trad movement. Send them packing, and we stand a chance.
Yea, and Congar, Balthasar, Kung, Rhaner, Chardin, etc. All had degrees and education, too. NO doubt they knew their latin, as well. And Peter was a Fisherman. I do not mean to belittle formal education, but it really counts for little. The Dali Lahma is an educated fellow, no?
DeleteS&S's book is shoddy, and John Lane, for example, has thoughtfully challenged them. And they devolved quickly into ad hominem you rightly criticise the Cicada for venturing into.
True Restoration was interesting the first few seasons.Now,it's literally Bishop Sanborn and his 2-3 priests talking endlessly in a very boring repetitive manner.(I was fading out after 5 minutes during almost every free episode the past 2 year's)
ReplyDeleteAre they unable or uninterested in acquiring other guests for shows?
Charles Coloumbe was THEE ONLY INTERESTING informative guest.
There are plenty of other bishop's and priest's,what it is with Stephen Heiner and MHT in Brooksville?
From all appearances, TRR is the un-official media outlet for the Brooksville and SW Ohio cult masters and their sorry flow crew.
DeleteWe stopped listening even to the free stuff after we exposed that idiotic explanation of the Summa, and Heiner didn't take it down. (Click HERE for our post.
The site is completely discredited in our eyes.
I searched for that episode and it wasn't there. It seems it was removed.
DeleteIt should be in page 53 but it isn't.
Well, maybe after so much trouble, Heiner had the good sense to remove that offense to the faith from his site. Perhaps Big Don told him to. We wonder whether Uneven-Steven is still TRR's "advisor." Ha,ha, ha! It tells you something about his judgment, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete