Saturday, April 23, 2016


Hibernicis ipsis Hibernior ("More Irish than the Irish themselves").  Proverbial Phrase (adapted)

SGG is a graveyard of miscarried endeavors.

Everything to which the cult masters put their unskilled hands ends in red-faced failure. The rapidly decaying cult theater has never moved out of what was originally planned as a gym. The scandal-plagued SGG "School" only corrals the ill-fated offspring from a handful of woebegone families.

Dannie has never emerged as the "world-wide" leader à la Lefebvre he once bragged of becoming: unwelcome in France, uninvited to England, and unwanted in most parts of Mexico, all he can manage is to play a threadbare Santa Claus to a few marginalized, renegade enclaves in Tijuana and Argentina, who would disinvite him in a flash if he stopped bringing them the Gerties' confiscated dollars.

Among other mischances are the recent failed efforts to reclaim lost (and never deserved) prestige; Tony Baloney's public outing for his mistranslations, mistaken theology, and misunderstanding of canon law; and Wee Dan's hasty withdrawal from sale of both his error-stuffed "All Saints Calendar" and his famously inept ORDO 2016.

In short, nothing the cult tries works out. Every enterprise it undertakes is doomed.

Down-on-his-Luck Dan's unbroken record of failure should prompt the prelataster to ask whether it's morally right to charge money for defective products. Clearly, at this point, an injured Trad Nation recognizes the SGG "clergy" don't have the training, work ethic, resources, or native intelligence to attempt ambitious intellectual projects and expect good money in return for inevitably substandard work.

A just man would have had this interior monologue:
God forgive me! All of us vermin at SGG — the Finn, Lurch, Erroneous Antonius, Uneven Steven and especially me, the raggedy, maggoty Dirtbag — we can't deliver. (*sob*) Our meager endowments are incapable of realizing our outsized egos' immodest aspirations. My own seething id has brought ruin down upon me and Big Don, my despised rival here in barren Tradistan. (*sniff*) It's a miracle that people put up with us at all. In good conscience, we dare not even offer our shoddy products for free, they're so full of stupid blunders. Henceforth, we'll acknowledge our insurmountable limitations and endeavor to make reparation. (*gulp*)
Alas! that kind of graced introspection is beyond the attainment of a malformed, me-firster cult master. So this is where Pistrina comes into the picture. We've got the facts to prove it's time for these raging sleaze bags to close up shop and head off to the retirement village they've been lately scoping out on the sly. In short, the hour has come to take Dannie's dreck off the market for good.

For today's exposé of His Impertinency's empire of error, we're going to focus only on one sentence of Dannie's disordered ORDO 2016.  In it you'll find crowded into 21 words all the flaws we've been writing about: bad Latin, inept editing, unjust pretense, and alienation from Catholic tradition. The sentence is emblematic of everything that's wrong with SGG, and it alone would be sufficient to convict the cult masters of nonfeasance.

Under St. Patrick's Day (p. 30), Dannie's moron compiler inserts the following note, the content of which is attributed to two paragraphs from the Additiones et Variationes ("AV") fore matter of the Roman Missal (red indicates a grave goof):
Ubi Festum S Patricii celebretur pro re publica causa, cum magno populi concursu, possit celebrare una Missa solemnis ubi dicitur Credo.
The italicized words in the following literal translation will make it obvious to the non-Latinist that there's something very wrong with Dubious Dan's text:
Where the Feast of St. Patrick be celebrated for a matter public cause, with a great concourse of the people, one solemn Mass may be able to celebrate where the Creed is said.

Let's autopsy this rotten liturgical cadaver by taking a quick look at both blunders quâ blunders only. Our interpretation will follow.


"For a matter public cause" (pro re publica causa) makes no sense because Dannie's brain-dead compiler didn't copy the original phrase correctly. The full phrase, as found in the Missal (as well as in many liturgical books), is pro re gravi et publica simul causa. The pinhead  skipped three out of seven words: that means 43% of the original was lost in transcription. (Way to go, Bozo!)

The full Latin phrase is a fixed rubrical formula (although occasionally in place of simul we find Ecclesiæ), and it means for an important object and at the same time for a general public interest. The Missal text refers to solemnly celebrated votive Masses wherein the Creed is recited.


No one needs to be a trained grammarian to guess that the active infinitive "to celebrate" (celebrare)  is dead wrong. It obviously should be passive, "to be celebrated" (celebrari in Latin).


Simple parablepsis cannot explain grave goof # 1. To be sure, a literate person might accidentally skip over several words when copying a long phrase. However, he or she would almost instantly know something was amiss because the miscopied text would plainly make no sense. Not to have recognized the error is a telltale token that the SGG numskulls do not understand Latin at the most basic level, a sign confirmed by the subsequent infinitive in the wrong voice (grave goof # 2).

The cult masters' ignorance of Latin poses a danger to the faithful.  The clown "clergy" may not understand what they're reading in Mass. During the silent canon, who knows how much of it they're skipping, tripping over, or misreading? (Remember the Skipper, that cretinous MHT "blunderkind" who forgot the consecration?) And when these simpletons quote theology, can you be certain they really understood the meaning of the text they're citing to keep you cowed and paying? And what if they miscopied it and then based their opinion on what they thought the mistranscribed (and no doubt misunderstood) Latin meant?

Troubling thought, isn't it?

This is not a problem that can be easily dismissed as petty nit-picking on our part. A priest's command of Latin remains central to the laity's spiritual welfare because basic competence in the language is essential in the Roman rite. Sound Latin is not an empty adornment, for without it, no man can function adequately in the Catholic priesthood, notwithstanding the validity of his orders. Souls in the "care" of the Latinless ordained are in jeopardy.

But more disturbing than ignorance of Latin is the note's wicked intimation that "One Hand" has jurisdiction. As you may remember from our remarks above, the substance of the Missal text, to which Dannie's note refers, speaks to solemn votive Masses (cfr. AV vii.3). According to J. O'Connell's The Celebration of Mass (1942),
A solemn votive Mass is one celebrated with extrinsic solemnity (i.e. a solemn Mass or at least a sung one, in presence of a large gathering ["cum magno populi concursu," as the Missal says at AV iv. 2, Ed.]), for a grave and at the same time public reason ["pro re gravi et publica simul causa", as the Missal says at AV vii.3, Ed.], by order, or with the permission, of the Ordinary of the place. (Vol. 1, p. 72, emphases ours.)
No matter what anyone tries to tell you, His Arrogancy is absolutely NOT the Ordinary of Tradistan. Neither Dannie nor any other wandering bishop possesses jurisdiction anywhere, not even in the confessional, except in danger of death. (And the reports of one-handed orders make Wee Dan's jurisdictional claims even weaker in respect to the tribunal of penance.)

As students of human nature, we Readers have to ask why Li'l Daniel included such a singularly odd, very-much-out-of-place note.  To tell you the truth, it's not actually a completely accurate reference to the content of AV — in fact, it has all the indicators of being a bungled patch job of bits and pieces from AV iv. 2 and AV vii.3 made to look like an authentic liturgical annotation. (Indeed, it stinks of special pleading.) Our next question is, Why are similar notes missing for other big-name saints' days, say, for instance, Pope St. Pius X on September 3, whose portrait appears on the cover of Dannie's incompetent ORDO 2016? ("For a Traddie, he's bigger than St. Paddy!")

Although we don't like guesswork, if you were to ask us to venture a conjecture, we'd say the purpose of this faulty note is to authorize Shanty-Irish Dannie to add the Creed in his own Mass on St. Patrick's Day, so as to impress his "cultitariat" with his deep knowledge (LOL) of the rubrics of the Roman Missal.*  Why, with a little effort, we can imagine his drawing the mob's attention to the appearance of the Creed in his Mass. And with a little more exertion, we see in our mind's eye the "Everybody's-Irish-on-St.-Patrick's-Day" cultling rabble wiping their greasy chops with the backs of their filthy paws and nodding spastically to each other in bestial wonderment at Wee Dan's exercise of his "powers" (LOL) to honor the Apostle of Ireland. ("That bee-ship is jes' a whole 'nother smoke, ain't he, Raylene Mae? Aaron goes raw!")

But remember:  "One Hand," a dubious episcopus vagans, has no brief to order or permit a solemn votive Mass with Creed for St. Patrick on March 17 — not even in the presence of a large gathering killing time until the beer kegs are tapped. It wouldn't make a bit of difference if pods of wheezing rite-trash scum were to jam their whale-sized backsides into the squalid cult center from transept to narthex, with standing room only in the fetid side aisles plus a packed, freezing cry-room of battered womenfolk whipping their unruly issue. His Disobediency still couldn't licitly say the Creed at such a swarming jamboree of genetic ne'er-do-wells: As the Missal says (AV iv.2), cujus rei judex est Ordinarius, "the Ordinary is the judge of that matter." And, as we've told you over and over, "One-Hand Dan" is NOT an Ordinary — a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e!


No one can count on Panhandlin' Dan to forego hawking his dead-on-arrival fiascos. The sociopathology of Tradistan demands that later this year he'll dig up the dry bones of his calamitous calendar and disordered ordo and put 'em on sale for the suckers. He thinks everyone will forget.

Let's tell His Deficiency he's mistaken.

Make sure you forward this post and all the others here, here, here, herehere, and here to as many people as possible, especially to your friends in Europe Latin America, and Australia/New Zealand. If we all get the word out about this massive failure, Dannie's dead ordo will remain stored in the SGG cult's charnel house of failure for eternity, of use only to the ghouls of the SW Ohio-Brooksville cabal and their scuzzy lackeys in California, Michigan, and Washington state. If Deacon Dan still feels the need to peddle liturgical advice to others in 2017, we suggest the following one-liner, which seems to us to embody his praxis:

Arbitrio tuo rem permitte.
(freely, in Cole Porter's words, "Anything Goes")

*As Dannie's own ordo shows, the great saint ordinarily doesn't get a Credo in his Mass. According to Rubricæ generales Missæ xi, he couldn't even get one in a so-called "chapel" that claimed him as patron and titular. (He wouldn't get one in a sede "church" either, since a "Mass center" is not a proper church [and, FYI, Mass centers aren't really chapels in the Catholic sense, either].)


  1. Hey,Pistrina you should read the March Adsum of Pivarunas available online.He writes its takes six years for someone in his "seminary" to train before being ordained.Total lies.Why has he been ordaining men with only three years numbers of times.

    We have inside infromation that the subscriptions to their Reign of Mary has really been dropping.Maybe some blinded folk are seeing the light.

    A pleasure to read your writings and you are to be commended.Keep up the fine work.

    1. You obviously lack good books, for example, writings of the Saints to read. That is fine work.

    2. To Anonymous April 24, 2016 at 5:10 AM. I reckon you need to see the light and refrain from stating negative comments. God expects you to do better. Do not be an instrument of the devil.

    3. Anon. Apr. 24 5:10 AM

      We're grateful for the tip about Adsum and the declining subscription rate. A few years ago, Big Don wrote about accelerating the completion time for the pesthouse inmates, too. And it's well known that Lefebvre often ordained men before the full term of their studies had been completed, which certainly accounts for many of the problems we have had in traditional Catholicism over the last 40 years or so. At least at Écône many of these early leavers had had some real seminary training in their own countries. (Some of those seminaries, BTW, especially the ones in Latin America, were far, far superior academically to Écône in the early days.)

      Three years of "training" (LOL) can at best result in a simplex priest, yet these guys are passed of as full Roman Catholic priests to the unsuspecting laity. Unconscionable. The laity must stop funding these insults to the faith and the human intellect and make sure they close down.

    4. Good advice.As far as someone saying people are instruments of the devil for exposing the problems in sedeland "Clerics" is beyond words.Can you see the early Saints of the Church sitting back and saying nothing.Our extended family have seen too many good people hurt.Yes,these men are insults to the Faith.You are to be commended for your fine work.

  2. Gosh! It is worse than anyone would believe. What is to stop anyone from Claiming to be a bishop, and coming into town with 12 men dressed in cassocks, claiming to be priests?

    What protects?

    1. There is nothing to stop it, and the entire idea of it fits perfectly into the "traditional clergy" model. There are no safeguards except for the good behavior of the ordaining/consecrating bishops. Of course good behavior is subjective, so there is no objective standards to rely on. This is what happens when lawlessness becomes the norm.

    2. Exactly right, Gene. There are no rules in Traddielandia. As we see from Wee Dan's behavior, you make it up as you go along.

      The absence of coercive order means that everyone is his own standard. We can only expect the situation to worsen.

      Dolan's 2009 $GG School Scandal put the trad "clergy" under the microscope, which revealed the inherent anomy within the trad adventure. Once all the sham came to light, other entrepreneurs realized that they, too, could get in on the game. All they needed was a cooperative fool willing to give them orders.

      We really don't blame them. If Dannie can be a "bishop," then why not anybody, especially since a sound knowledge of Latin and theology is no longer the gatekeeper to holy orders?

  3. I hear now that Mr. Dr. Fr. Big Daddy, Droleskey has now another title, BISHOP.

    You cannot make this stuff up!

    1. I have not heard this, but I am also not surprised by it. Many do not realize this, but there are hundreds of "traditional" bishops all around the world, many more than commonly thought.

    2. We've also heard this story from a source we have come to rely upon as accurate. It's no big deal. Wandering bishops are being created almost by the week nowadays, so there's no reason to be shocked by this latest news. You can't really blame these upstarts for getting themselves ordained once they look at the current cult kingpins and realize those scum are no better than they are. In some cases, the newbies are far better educated than current failed crop of blowhard pooh-bahs and panjandrums. Moreover, since sound Latin doesn't seem to a requirement any longer, there's nothing to stop them.

      Actually, we think it's a healthy development.


      The wanton multiplication of episcopi vagantes will disabuse traditional Catholics of their misplaced reverence for any Tom, Mark, or Dannie/Donnie who calls himself a "bishop" and expects everyone to gush with admiration.

      Maybe they'll finally get it into their heads that these "bishops" are all self-selected and that their possession of the episcopacy is no assurance that they are academically prepared or worthy. That's all over with.

      It's almost as easy today to become a "bishop" as it is to become a Universal Life minister. We fully expect this newest addition will contribute to the peopling of Tradistan with many married clergy, who in turn will beget even more.

      When the faithful look at the whole batch and compare them to each other, they'll quickly realize that they've made a big misjudgment.

  4. Reader,

    I see your point, your view is a solution of managing the exiting disorder, but I believe that the best way this could have been handled right from get start is for there not to have been any illicit consecrations/ordinations.

    For years, the argument has always been that epikeia allows this, that the lawgiver did not envision this situation, etc. The reality is that while this is true, it does not mean that the lawgiver willed for this scenario of vagrant, wandering bishops, many of whom take unlawful liberties with their "status" and illicitly gather and govern the flock.

    Many have argued that if these illicit consecrations were not done that Apostolic Succesion would have been endangered, as though it could ever fail! That is a perverse view, a lack of Faith, and is based on an incorrect understanding of the Apostolic Succesion in the first place. None of these bishops transmit the succession to those whom they consecrate, they merely transmit orders, not Apostolic succession.

    God controls the "faucet," he can turn up the pressure and flow or allow it to slow down. He is in control of how frequent and available the sacraments will be throughout the world. It is not for us to steal this power unto ourselves. If we are left without regular sacraments by those lawfully sent, then we should have trusted that this was God's will, rather than for rogue bishops to be created to take the sacramental orders unto themselves for their private unauthorized use, thereby setting up two types of sacramental sources, one licit and authorized and one illicit.

    I am not arguing that we cannot partake of these sacraments that derived from an illicit source, as the Code allows this, but I am arguing that every one of these illicitly consecrated bishops was a mistake, even if some good fruit has come from them.

    If a couple sins and illicitly brings forth a child that someday becomes a saint, it still does not make the act that brought the child into the world licit. In the same manner, if these illicit bishops did not exist, we would not have nearly the amount of masses and sacraments, and many would have spiritually suffered, but that still does not justify illicit consecrations of bishops who have no rightly claim to the orders, who remain unsupervised amd roam the world intruding themselves into any diocese they wish at will.

    Catholics in the 70's and 80's should have trusted God to provide for them rather than take for themselves what was not theirs to take. It is better to just accept what God has given us and trust in Him, rather than to break His law, even for what we perceive to be a good end.

  5. With all these wandering bishops in the world, maybe they'll get together & have a conclave to elect one of them pope. Then again, with all the in-fighting, I don't think they'd be able to agree on any one man. Sorry to hear of Dr. D going off on such a tangent. These men think they're sooo important!

  6. Anon 4/24 7:43pm:

    The vagrant bishops are not lawful electors, so the election would be illegal and could only produce an antipope.

    1. Gene,

      Between us there is no disagreement about these "bishops," and we agree with you that they never should have been allowed to operate in the first place. In fact, we'll stipulate that their consecrations were grievously sinful. Their claim to Apostolic Succession is a canard, as they are not in full communion with and subordination to the Church and a legitimate successor of the head of the apostolic college.

      But since the damage has already been done, and traddies aren't going to change their ways, then we need a new model under which the laity can manage wandering bishops. First and foremost, they must put to bed the fiction that these ecclesiastical monstrosities can govern. It would also be wise to forbid them the use of pontificals except when performing very specifically episcopal rites (e.g., ordination, consecration of oils, etc.)

    2. To anon. April 24, 10:23 AM , who said, “You obviously lack good books…”: Well, you obviously lack good BRAINS. The same goes for anon. April 24, 12:43 PM.: making negative comments about someone who DESERVES those comments does NOT constitute being “an instrument of the devil.” Quite the contrary: remaining silent about such men (and enabling them to continue to do what they do unchallenged) is being “an instrument of the devil.”

      OUR LORD made plenty of “negative comments” about the Pharisees. I guess, according to the logic of these two bozos, that would make Him “an instrument of the devil.” So, if these two hypocrites don’t have anything better to do, than to utter sanctimonious platitudes (instead of saying something pertinent to the subject at hand), then I suggest that they simply SHUT UP. This blog is for intelligent contributions germane to the topic, not for going off on irrelevant tangents by brainless, pseudo-pious know-nothings.

    3. Yes, Gene, I'm well aware that the election would be illegal - just as they are. I wrote that somewhat facetiously. But in this insane world, the possibility of this 'conclave' is high. Just when you think it can't get any more bizarre - it does! If they can make a bishop, why can't they make a conclave?!

    4. Ha! Ha!

      Anon. Apr 25 1:12 AM, you have hit the nail squarely on the head! It's so nutty now, these morons are capable of any barbarity. We're sure they'll concoct some nonsense enabling them to become legitimate electors. May they'll declare Tradistan an extension of the city of Rome and claim they're Roman clergy! If Dannie can give St.Patrick a Creed, then anything's possible.

    5. The Watcher April 25, 12:48 AM.

      Intelligent contributions will not solve today's problems. Nothing happens without God's permission. We wait for Divine intervention.

    6. Just the kind of response I’d expect from one of these know-nothings: another sanctimonious platitude. Yes, nothing happens without God’s permission; but, again, what does that have to do with what is being said? Nothing. It’s just more sanctimonious pap. Actually, intelligent contributions WILL do much more toward solving today’s problems – at least, much more than your meaningless, irrelevant comment.

    7. The Watcher, you are so correct! When asked who is their ultimate authority, their answer is Jesus. Such a sanctimonious cop out answer that deserves much ridicule. These fools will wait and wait until Jesus manifests Himself to mankind and they will be like the Jews of old, unbelievers! Yes, they have hardened their hearts to not see the very truth presented to them. It is such irony that they preach his gospels and yet they do not believe!

  7. PL, I also agree that we see eye to eye on the theology of in these matters. It is actually a blessing thst more Catholics are grasping these matters and I am happy to find another that sees things so clearly as yourself and the Reader. The question now is where do we go from here? I think the first thing is to call for no more illicit ordinations/consecrations. I think the second thing to do is to define exactly what standards are to be used to evaluate what "traditional" priests are safe to go to.

    I think this is a much bigger task than it may appear. We are trying to evaluate something that should not exist in the first place, so we can't just open a pre-Vatican II book and find a clear and explicit answer. I think it's worth noting as well that all of our opinions on this are subject to change depending on new evidence, making this even more complex. I also think there may be disagreements on this, as this is a matter of private judgment, and is not authoritative. That's why I think defining the minimum standards is the best initial approach, so all can agree on the least common denominator.

    I can give you my opinions, and for what it's worth, I think you and I agree on many of the priests that I would consider unsafe.

    The one thing that I think should be clear is that the fruits of the novel idea of "traditional clergy" is now clear, it is overall mostly rotten. It was the wrong response to the crisis, and it has led to a disaster, with a myriad of problems in the groups as a whole and individually within each group.

    Lastly, all of the trouble within these groups has taken the focus off of the real problem in the Church, that we need a Pope, and that the only way to get a Pope is through the remaining lawful members of the hierarchy and and Roman clergy.

    All of the endless drama with the SSPX, SGG and SSPV and to some degree the other groups and priests, is a waste of time, and a useless sideshow. If none of them existed, all of us would be much better focused on the real problem and looking for real solutions. Conversely, since they do exist we are endlessly dealing with them, and our focus remains continually upon them and the hundreds of issues that need attention from them.

  8. We second everything you say. Much of the same reasoning in your last two paragraphs lies behind our position of aliquid pravism. All Catholics who see the "real problem" must work toward its solution.

    For the sedes to be able to participate in any general problem-solving effort, they must confront the ill preparation and self-interest of their "clergy," as you argue. We believe the laity can take the lead in developing basic criteria to assess whether a traditional priest is safe or not. (Regrettably, even the most liberal of assessment instruments will qualify very few of these men as "safe.") The standards should be published online, and the names of those men who are "qualified" to serve the faithful should be listed.

    The list should by no means be interpreted as approval, for, as you say, today we realize the very emergence of these renegades was the wrong approach in the first place. If we went in the direction of some kind of certification, we would perpetuate the difficulty we are trying to escape. In essence, it would only be an indicator that assisting at their Mass poses less of a danger to the layman's soul and his family's treasure.

    Admittedly, the immediate result would not be the emptying of the cults, but it would set in motion a conversation among the laity that will spell the end for them. The continuous online discussion since the 2009 $GG $chool Scandal has produced a critical mass of discontent, which is leading to defections. To be sure, places like Brooksville will be able to soldier on because they are financially supported by a hard-core inner group with vested interests in its continuance. But at least decent people will be warned and will leave or stay away. Eventually the cult will be left to feed upon itself, which is fine with us. The objective is to isolate it and stop its influence.

    1. In my view, we are in an unresolvable situation. When the bishops Thuc, Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer and Mendez broke the law of the Church and privately chose candidates for episcopal consecration, and then went through with it, unleashing autocephalous vagrant bishops into the Catholic fold, they (unwittingly?) created something so radically novel and dangerous that it is hard to react to it.

      What they created were bishops who would operate privately in the Church, operating solely on their own judgment in the use of the episcopal orders, answerable to no one.

      These bishops on their own non-authority would judge the fitness of candidates for the priesthood and ordain priests who would also as unauthorized agents roam the world without any approval or lawful supervision.

      With this as a backdrop, I think we can draw some conclusions:

      1. The existence of this illegal anomaly in the Church was wrong from the start. The bishops involved gravely erred in judgment by consecrating and ordaining bishops and priests in this circumstance.

      2. Since this act was done, and bishops priests are now as free agents roaming the world, it is for the laity to judge them as to whether it is prudent to request the sacraments from them, in regards to their validity of their orders and secondly to whether they are in any way a danger to our (or our children's) Faith or morals

      3. Other than the sacramental role of these bishops and priests when the laity request it, they have no other role: not: in giving unauthorized sermons, judging marriages as to validity, authoritiavely judging unsettled matters and applying sanctions (denial of holy Communion), telling Catholic which priests or groups they are forbidden from going to, dispensing, etc.

      4. Our role as the laity is to keep the Faith, stay in the state of grace, and wait for the legitimate hierachy to return. At no time should the "traditional bishops and priests" be considered or in an any way equated with the lawful hierarchy, who alone posses the commision to gather and rule over the sheep.

  9. Gene wrote:

    "All of the endless drama with the SSPX, SGG and SSPV and to some degree the other groups and priests, is a waste of time, and a useless sideshow."

    What is your solution, Gene? I'm not going back to the novus ordo - especially with Francis at the helm.

    1. HEAR HEAR. Francis is doing a wonderful job for the sedevacantists.

    2. So all you seedy sede's by your own admission would rather have seen St. Athanasius break away and start another sect? It's a darn good thing we have history to show us differently now isn't it? He remained faithful to a pope who wasn't worthy and the rest is history. O ye of little faith! History is replete with scoundrel popes and prelates who abuse the Word of God for personal gain. It is in our best interest to remain faithful to the Church while professing the truth.
      All of the aforementioned groups have one thing in common - a brick wall! There is no hope nor is there any connection to the truth. Although Pope Francis may very well be in the anti column, we must pray for him to see the truth. There are plenty of faithful Catholics in the Church today! There are societies dedicated to the restoration of the faith, yet sede's are too blind to see them.
      It is time to stop supporting and keeping these beggars in business. Cut off the money and they will whither away.

    3. Our Lady of La Salette: "Rome will lose the Faith and become seat of the Antichrist".

    4. The Holy Bible: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues." Apocalypse 18:4

    5. Anon. Apr. 26 3:53 PM

      That quotation from Scripture applies just as aptly to the unclean Babylon of the luxury-loving, money-mad SW Ohio-Brooksville cult cabal. "As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye her." Ibid. 18.7

    6. Anon 4/25 9:59 p.m.:

      It seems to me that you are creating a false dichotomy. The state of sedevacantism has nothing to do with the groups, bishops and priests who hold the position, or variations of the position.

      Another way to say it is this: if all of the sedevacantist groups, bishops, and priests disappear at this moment, that does not in any way change the truth of the position. It stands or falls on the arguments that support it, not the people who hold it.

    7. Critic 4/26 7:44 A.M.:

      You should know reflect on each of your propositions and root out your assumptions from the facts.

    8. Gene, there are no false dichotomies I can assure you. "The state of sedevacantism has nothing to do with the groups.." Really?! Sedevacantism is the absence of the Roman Pontiff when he is no longer reigning, most commonly when he dies or abdicates the throne. So, the manner in which these "groups" use the term is disingenuous, for they bastardize the original meaning by stretching the term to fit THEIR use. There is no time in history that reflects this bastardization, it is upon you to prove it! To my knowledge, you cannot. It is a false position or opinion created to support schism. Now, your job is to prove otherwise.

    9. Critic, the term "sedevacantism" was never used in Church history, prior to this crisis. The term was created, by Michael Davies I believe, as a description for this position of rejecting the Conciliar claimants, and acknowledging that despite their claims, there is no pope.

      Since the term never existed, the current use of this new term is hardly a bastardization, as you assert. If you disagree show the use of the term prior to this current crisis.

      I stand by my statement on the false dichotomy. One cannot use as an argument that the problems of the sedevacantist groups, bishops and priests is by that an argument against the position of sedevacantism. The position stands or falls based on whether its arguments are true, not on who may hold the position.

    10. Gene, I understand your point, however I will disagree. Sedevacantism was born of disobedience, thus creating a parallel church. I agree that never in history has the term been used as it is today, which gives more credibility to the fact that they operate as rogues are usurpers of priestly authority. Anyone who claims to be sedevacantist is schismatic at best. Sorry, but there is no excuse for sin due to sin.

    11. You still do not seem to grasp this. You state, "I agree that never in history has the term been used as it is today," but the fact is that the term was never used at all. It is a new term that describes something new, that's why it is not found anywhere in Church history. Our current crisis in the Church is also something new for the Church, so this new anomaly is begging for some new terms to describe it.

      You still seem to be drawing in the bishops and priests who profess sedevacantism and conflating them with the actual position of sedevacantism. This is incorrect logically, The lawfulness of the sedevacantist "clergy" is a separate question from whether sedevacantism is the correct response to public heretics claiming to be popes.

      I agree, there is no excuse for sin, but that is really not at issue.

      If you want to have a discussion on whether sedevacantism is a true and correct position, I am happy to discuss that with you, but let's leave out the non-sequiturs.

    12. Gene is correct. The term "sedevacantism" and its variations was coined some time in the 1970's, probably by Bp. Guérard des Lauriers. In other words, they didn't bastardize the term; they invented it to describe what's going on in the Church today, and for several decades now.

      The argument that "we've never had a situation with no pope" is completely irrelevant. Before the Great Western Schism, there had never been a time with three claimants to the throne of St. Peter. That doesn't mean that the Great Western Schism doesn't exist. There's a first time for everything.

      And you seem to think that the sedevacantist idea is false because you don't like the behavior of some of its proponents. You're not the first person who has said that on here. If you really believe that whether or not Bergoglio is pope or has the Catholic Faith depends on the actions of sedevacantist priests or bishops, then you are completely disconnected from reality.

      But I guess that can happen to someone who is trying to believe that Bergoglio believes in the Catholic Faith.

  10. Error is truly egregious. Were you ever able to find out who was responsible for preparing? Doesn't excuse the reviewers/supervisors, especially since some of the errors seem to have come straight from the top.

    In regard to list of priests, found this on the web.

    1. PL April 26, 4:09 PM

      No sedevacantism at the time the Bible was printed. So the quotation from Scripture is in reference to whom? It is more Rome than SW Ohio-Brooksville.

    2. Anon Apr 26 4:00 PM

      No, we haven't yet learned the name of the idiot who compiled Dannie's erroneous ORDO 2016. Hopefully someone will come forward and identify this knucklehead.

    3. Gene to PL April 25, 3:14 AM.

      2nd last para states ..."the real problem in the Church, that we need a Pope"...The para above it states "mostly rotten". The rot is from the top, that is Rome! Our Lady of La Salette knew and She cares for Her children.

    4. Yes, with an orthodox Supreme Roman Pontiff all problems would be solved. What's best, if we do get a true Pope, the cult masters would never accept him, so we'd be free of them forever.

    5. God doesn't will the death of sinners; nor does he will wickedness. Anyone who continues to congregate w/these evil doers will be held accountable for their sins (cooked in the same pot w/them).

  11. Could the idiots name be Mark Lotarski who complied Dannie's 2016 ORDO?

    1. Anon April 28, 3:17 PM.

      God's will is in agreement with the Reader April 27, 5:05 PM re Supreme Roman Pontiff.

  12. I recently read an interesting article by Fr. Schmidberger SSPX on the inevitable reconciliation of the SSPX to the Roman authority. It is a great work that fully explains the issue at hand. What I find fascinating is that Christ founded His Church knowing full well that the Eucharist would be desecrated throughout her existence and that He had foreseen each pope to the end of time and the damage they would cause. Yet, He is with the us through this beleaguered structure and now the SSPX have an awesome responsibility ahead of them. They will have more of an opportunity to be effective in righting the wrong.
    Please take the time and carefully read:

  13. The said article first surfaced [leaked?] on April 15 when I forwarded it to 4 contacts. A lot is going on and we should really focus on important issues.

    Need I mention Amoris Laetitia?

  14. Regret not seeing or not recalling what Gene may have stated about what he thinks DOES work, if it is in the past Archives. One comment on this blog post asks him to state what he does think would work, and as far as could see, Gene didn't answer.