Saturday, April 2, 2016


I deeme, thy braine emperished bee/Through rusty elde, that hath rotted thee. Spenser (Oxford edition)

Recently someone sent us a link to an online forum on the topic of traditional Catholic calendars. To our amusement, we found some posts praising SGG's  messy "All Saints Roman Catholic Calendar." Evidently these clueless valentines to Li'l Daniel were sent before our post of February 14, where we reported the calendar's abrupt withdrawal from sale, while noting its erroneous entry for the start of Daylight Savings Time. It took Dannie the Dummy three weeks to admit his goof:
I apologize if I got you up an hour late for Sunday Mass! (Some of you leave no time to spare, anyway, especially since we’ve mostly cancelled the cushion club.) Some years we get confused with Daylight Saving Time, but it is indeed next Sunday. These artificial jiggerings of the clock are hard to keep track of. But I hope there was no harm done. (Mar. 6 "Bishop's [?] Corner.)
Why Dimwit Dan-Oh didn't advise the Gerties earlier is anybody's guess. We'd given the mental midget plenty of time to repair this harmful blunder, but he chose to play dumb. Maybe he wants to punish the Gertrie genetic underclass who don't support him in the high style he thinks he deserves. Maybe he just can't get his act together.


Although the SGG calendar may be fine for the addled cult masochists, who don't really care as long as they feel degraded, it's obvious that real Catholics should be aware of its grotesque sloppiness. There's no sense in wasting money again on next year's mess, especially when there are so many better products available from traditional priests who actually know what they're doing. Therefore, in the hope that someone out there in cyberspace will share our observations online, we'll highlight a few more stupidities we found in this monument to editorial incompetence.
. . . . . . . . . .


Let's begin by exposing a shameful flaw in editing.

In cases where there is, say, more than one companion in martyrdom, calendar editors, for the sake of space, don't print all the names. (Well, back in 2012, one anally obsessive misadventure printed all the names, but it seems to have been a one-off attempt on the part of ill-advised dilettantes.)  Editors, as a rule, list the first saint's name and lump the others under the phrase "and Comp(anions)." (The Church's Kalendarium occasionally adopts the same practice, as for instance, St. Ursula with her many un-named virgin martyrs or St. Maurice with his numerous fellow Theban legionaries.)

Accordingly, on April 14, instead of printing "Ss. Tiburtius, Valerian, and Maximus, Mm," a pragmatic (and emotionally stable) editor prints "St. Tiburtius and Comp, Mm," saving quite a few characters. To gain additional space, many print the ampersand rather than spell out "and." (Regrettably, our version of Blogger doesn't permit us to type the logogram.)

The problem with the ineptly curated SGG calendar is that, in a large number of these cases, the "Bungling Bishop (?)" improperly prints the plural "Ss" instead of the correct singular "St."* Thus, on April 14, we find "Ss Tiburtius [and Comp]" (here he also forgot the liturgical suffix "Mm" after "Comp"!);  on May 3, "Ss Alexander etc." (without the post-nominal monarchical ordinal "I"); on May 12, "Ss Nereus etc."; on June 2, "Ss Marcellinus etc."; on June 15, "Ss Vitus etc." (again the suffix "Mm" is missing!); on August 6, "Ss Xystus II etc."; on August 22, "Ss Timothy etc."; on September 20, "Ss Eustace etc."; on September 22, "Ss Maurice etc."; on September 26, "Ss Isaac Jogues etc."; on October 9. "Ss Denis etc."; on October 21, "Ss Ursula etc."; and on November 10, "Ss Tryphon etc.";

Whew! Is Dull Dannie a loser or what?**

As you know, at Pistrina we're enquiring minds, so we'd like to take a guess at the source of this big boo-booSince so many of Dannie's and Checkie's blunders are the result of their ignorance of the Latin language, we thought we'd start by looking in that direction. Sure enough, Pistrina found a plausible explanation. The Church's Kalendarium, which is written in Latin, uses the plural abbreviation "Ss" (= sancti or sanctæ) for entries that list all the individual martyrs' names and for commemorations that subsume the others' names under the generic word socii ("companions").

Hence for August 22 and September 22, we find respectively Ss. Timothei, Hippolyti Ep, et Symphoriani Mm and  Ss. Mauritii et Sociorum Mm. Now, whereas the first example would be read in English as "(feast) of Saints Timothy, Hippolytus a Bishop, and Symphorian, Martyrs" (a direct translation of the plural), the second example cannot be read as "(commemoration) of Saints Maurice and Companions, Martyrs."

The reason is that in Latin the fundamental adjectival function of Ss. (sancti, -æ) before a series of names  is still strongly felt (i.e., "holy ones x, y, and z"), whereas in English saint(s) is felt as a noun. As a title, saint must precede a proper noun like other titles (e.g., Nurse Ratched, Doctor Strangelove, Mister Bean, Father Brown).    Therefore, in the August 22 commemoration, with its string of individual names, "saints" is correct Latin and English, for it works like "Messrs. Brown, Jones, and Robinson,"  "Doctors Frankenstein and Rotwang," and "the Misses Brontë." However, in the September 22 commemoration, the plural isn't idiomatic English, because "Companions" is not a proper noun. In Latin, however, since the felt meaning is "Holy Maurice and his [Holy] Companions," the initial plural "Ss." is used.

So there we have it! Dopey Dan might well have used the Kalendarium as his source, but because Latin is so foreign to him, he mindlessly copied the format without a thought as to its proper rendering in English idiom.

Now that's stupid.
. . . . . . . . . .


Admittedly, it's only a guess that the cult masters' trouble with Latin is the source of the class of errors we exposed above. His Deficiency may have been using inferior reference material in English. (How would he know the difference between good stuff and bad?) There is, nonetheless, another hideous blunder in the SGG calendar to document with near certainty the cult "clergy's" persistent difficulties with the sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church — difficulties that render them unfit to publish anything about worship and theology.

In Dorky Dan's "poetic" caption below the murky, annoyingly out-of-focus image for the month of June — it looks frighteningly like a rural Mississippi cross-burning rally — His Gaucherie writes:
We see the faithful gathered singing the Vesper hymn "Ut quant [sic!] laxis" in honor of this great Saint.
Only a Latinless cretin could have failed to spot that error. (It should read "queant.") But if at proofreading the "clergy" did not possess enough Latin to recognize the misprint — which in an over abundance of charity we'll attribute to the auto-correct function — there's still no excuse. This hymn for the Nativity of St. John the Baptist is of world renown among musicologists. (Click here if you'd like to see just how famous it is.) No Catholic priest with a rudimentary formation could have missed that howler. Impossible.

But, then, we're not talking about properly formed clergy, are we

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hard-working Catholics deserve more than a belated, insincere, after-the-damage-was-done apology in the cat-litter of the "Bishop's (?) Corner." His Errancy owes the faithful something more.

Lately Doofus Dan's favorite phrase seems to be making reparation. (Have you noticed how he uses it constantly?) In Dannie the Dunderhead's understanding, to be sure, it's religiously loaded code for the Gerties to fork over more money. But in its correct legal sense, to make amends for a wrong inflicted, it directly applies to His Incompetency.

Taking the SGG calendar off sale is not enough to redress the wrong incurred by selling such trash to trusting Catholics. The Mitered Moron must go one step further and never produce another calendar again. Furthermore, he must use his Santa-Fe vacation money to refund the purchase price to everyone who bought a copy of this disgraceful gambit aimed at passing himself off as a ponderous authority when in fact he's as light as air.

Write Dumbo Dan today, and tell him to do the right thing.

* In all fairness, Dim Dan isn't the only one with this problem. For instance, the Saint Andrew Daily Missal and Thurston's Butler are similarly mistaken when they employ the shorthand phrase "and Companions." On September 22, for instance, the poor Saint Andrew Missal is so confused it can't make up its mind. It starts off with "Commemoration of St Maurice and Companions," but switches to "Commemoration  of SS. Maurice and Companions"; then on the next page, it twice prints "Commemoration of SS. Maurice and Companions" before concluding with "Mass of St Maurice and his Companions." The correct style can be found in the old Benziger Bros. calendar in their translation of the Breviary or in the Kalendar of the Anglican Missal or Anglican Breviary, both of which were edited by highly educated men who were practiced masters of the English language, quite unlike any of the cult masters.

** Obviously he made a mistake, but our favorite imbecile managed to get the usage right on a few occasions, e.g.,  June 12,  July 18, and  September 19 (except at the latter date he printed a redundant "M" after "Bp"!). On October 7, "St. Mark, PC etc." only looks correct. He actually bungled it completely because the companions belong to St. Sergius (whom he completely ignores), not to Pope St. Mark!

And we thought Dannie liked to read the lives of the saints.

Pretense. All of it. Unadulterated pretense. 


  1. Hey Pistrina, what do you think about this?

    From what I can tell, it's from the CMRI nuns.

    1. I think you are mistaken, there are associated with bp. Kelly's FSSPV. The CMRI's sister act goes by the name of "The Singing Nuns".

    2. We really know very little about all these "sister acts." Following all the ersatz "priests" is penance enough, but keeping track of make-believe religious would be hell on earth for us. We have very fond memories of the über-competent and demanding nuns (with advanced degrees from real universities) who taught us, and we don't want to spoil one of the last good images from the dead Catholic past with another traddie nightmare.

    3. After listening to it, I can surely tell you that it was not the "Sister Act" Singing Nuns because this group of women sounds too good. After the split, when the 15 or so left, all the intelligent and talented ones left leaving behind the manual laborers to fill some pretty big shoes.They are a joke as they have squandered a once promising school, having for teachers girls who themselves just graduated from high school. I can see "Sister" Kazimera dressed with her Paul Bunion red flannel shirt teaching the kids the art of the log roll or wielding her massive chain saw for the ever difficult log sawing contest all the while singing "Dominique a." Nothing but a bunch of clowns.

    4. My apologies! I should've checked before posting the video. A friend of mine showed it to me a couple of years ago and I knew that the nuns were sedevacantists but I didn't remember which group they belonged to, so I thought they were CMRI.

      I really did not mean it to be a pro-CMRI thing; I was more interested to know if the way they sing and use the organ etc. was alright and how it was before, that's all.

    5. Dear Anon (April 3, at 7:54 a.m.)

      Please see your last sentence. You actually said: "From what I can tell, it's from the CMRI nuns."

      So there was some basis, that made you think it was the CMRI nuns. Or you automatically assumed that it was. The singing, the organ playing was really good (kudos to the Daughters of Mary).

      Looks like it was reflex action: if it's good, it must be CMRI; claim it as done by CMRI. Tsk, tsk.

      Please, be aware that The Reader, Pistrina, The Critic (and others, as well) have sharp eyes/minds. They won't be easily duped, since they already know a lot about SGG/CMRI.

    6. If you don't believe me, that's up to you. I knew these nuns were SV but when I found out about that a couple years ago, I'm not sure I knew which group they belonged to, and when I posted the video recently, I didn't even check, so I should not have said "from what I can tell" because I didn't even check. I just picked CMRI in the moment because I know they have nuns and I didn't know what other SV group has nuns.

      That's it. It was my bad.

  2. This is most certainly NOT from (or sung by) the CMRI nuns.

    The good sisters singing here are the Daughters of Mary (founded by Fr [now Bp] Clarence Kelly) and they are affiliated with the SSPV.

    What's going on here?

    Hey, Pistrina: as the moderator, do you not notice that recently there is some ongoing attempt to justify, or bolster, or make unwarranted claims on behalf of CMRI? Such as the recent attempt to insinuate that the CMRI nuns "spearheaded" or significantly contributed to the study and advancement of the Latin language? And now this? Looks like cultlings trying to claim for their cult what they are not entitled to? Sheesh!

    Cults like SSG/CMRI are good enough to fool their cult members; and no one else. Normal, sane individuals are not likely to be duped by them. Thanks to Pistrina's efforts, many decent folks will wise up and see through these cults for what they are. Keep up the good work, Pistrina.

    1. Indeed, we have noticed there's an aggressive PR campaign going on in all the bishop-led cults to reassure the remaining victims. Sort of like the rogue Wall Street firms that destroyed people's futures now touting their investment expertise in unnumbered ads for retirement planning. They think that wild boasts of financial competence and faux concern in the wake of their unpunished transgressions will make people forget their culpability. Wrong.

      Anon. Apr. 3, 8:47 AM is right on the money: the campaigns are aimed at the cultlings, not at the wider trad community. Outside the cults, these "clergy" no longer have any credibility, while inside the folks are becoming restive. There's too much factual information out there to sweep under the rug. The cult masters have got to hold on to whatever marketshare they can, so they're clumsily resorting to outrageous claims of authenticity.

      But it won't work. Oh, sure, they'll always have a core of depraved true-believers, but it won't sustain them. Little by little, the others will withdraw support even if they don't immediately leave. (The loss of enthusiasm and good will is often more damaging to an organization than outright exits.)

      Now as the cult masters scan the faces in the pews at their Sunday "sermons," they sense the resentment, the doubt, and the disapproval. No longer can they expect to find general admiration or acquiescence. And that bothers them to no end. (The campaign is proof.)

      Inasmuch as they disesteem the faithful, they then delude themselves into thinking the campaign is working. As a result, they won't change the behavior that's alienating everyone. Since the criticism won't stop, the campaign will not succeed, and then more will disengage or leave.

      We have entered end times for the cults — and the bosses know it. They're hanging on to the hope that they can retire in some kind of luxury before the party's over. Our job — everyone's job — is to try to make that retirement considerably less luxurious.

    2. Excellent Post speaking as one who cancelled subscription to TRRadio who was born protestant, converted into V2 in spite of reservations about RCIA, saw it was more protestant than the Episcopal Church at Our Lady of Peace Cathedral on Oahu... and left... and has been learning at an good clip now that schedule permits unlimited time to read archives at sites like this.

  3. This blog has enlightened me so much that I just had to ask this question. Are you the people who put on line the magnificent Breviary at

    1. No, we're not. That site is far superior to anything we could produce. Like you, we admire it from afar. We do know that it has no affiliation with any of the cult masters.

    2. Yes; the first clue of possibly or probably - am not the person to decide - the best venue in Ohio and assuredly among the best in the US - because of the Mission Statement at by Fr. Hall... who

      1. was among those who suffered most during the past several decades when he was embroiled with SGG and MHT (Don) simple by being present and doing his job... because he is light years above everyone else around him character-wise. His humility is profound and unwavering and and and...

      2. is responsible for

      Definitely among the chapels am considering relocating thousands of miles to avail myself of with profound gratitude.

  4. Spearheaded was an exaggeration. The facts are:

    The CMRI sisters attended ACL.
    They offered workshops on Gregorian chant.
    Standing room only was the norm for their workshops.
    My colleagues told me that they now had a greater appreciation for the oral use of Latin especially through chant.

    Pure Speculation

    They may have been invited to offset the wonderful Latin Mattins according to the magnificent 1662 BCP which was offered during the conferences although at an ungodly hour.

    1. Just a second, good Critic. Let's look at this again.

      Most of the members of the American Classical League are first-rate, serious educators, with great credentials. Our guess is that Anon. Apr. 3, 5:26 PM is one of them.

      Professional organizations have to offer a variety of workshops for the conference attendees, so the leadership may have thought these "nuns" would fill the bill for an entertaining and informative interlude. Remember that most of the ACL workshops would be fairly serious pedagogical affairs so a little lightness is always welcome to weary conference goers. (Believe us, we know. Neque semper arcum/Tendit Apollo, "Nor does Apollo always stretch his bow."

      We'd venture to say that most ACL members are not Catholics, let alone traditional Catholics so many may not have been exposed to chant. The luscious plainsong and a no doubt ebullient presentation would have been a draw for people who've never seen a nun in habit except in the old movies.

      The presence of these "nuns" by invitation of the planning directorate doesn't indicate they play any material part in the revival of classical studies, and Anon. has generously admitted his previous use of "spearheaded" was an unfortunate instance of hyperbole.

      It's too bad the Latin of Tradistan is so bad. If there were a real Latin seminary with lectures and oral exams conducted in Latin, then the attendees could have really developed an appreciation for conversational Latin from a workshop led by well-formed seminarians and several honest-to-goodness professors. Alas! That will never materialize in Tradistan.

    2. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! However, I think it's hilarious that any tradistani cult member use the word, "colleague."

    3. True, but Anonymous 4/3 may not even be a traditional Catholic or even a Catholic, and maybe he was referring to one of his fellow classics teachers. We think he once said he didn't have a dog in this fight. He may just be an innocent bystander in this traddie shoot-'em-up.

    4. Point taken, Reader. You see more than I, so I assume anyone defending the CMRI are adherents to its false doctrines.

  5. I can confirm to the interested parties on this blog that the nuns singing in this Video are the Daughters of Mary. I fondly remember Sr. Marie Therese who was an excellent Choir Director in the Good Old Days, creating St.Pius V's Singing NUNS. She taught the Gregorian Chant, and the Choir mastered it to perfection under her strict direction. IF memory serves me right, she has a degree in MUSIC. Bishop Kelly should treasure her, as they $old an awful lot of CD's thanks to that little nun.

    1. Thanks for the background. SSPV standards have always been high. The calendar they produce is pretty decent, and superior by several hundred orders of magnitude to SGG's junk. Bp. Kelly knew what he was doing when he jettisoned the Tradistani cult masters. If they ever get to the Tampa area, they'll cream off all but the worst cult scum from Big Don's compound.

    2. So you think Fr. Jenkins is a good, educated priest?

    3. Well, according to what we once found on the web, he attended the Angelicum.

  6. The Critic,do you know the background of Father Kevin Vaillancourt(Thomas Marie)Did he leave the CMRI or was he kicked out?We know several sisters went with him to start another convent.Just wondering

    1. Interesting question. It was no coincidence that Mark Pivarunas was "elected" for the entrepreneur bishopric position. If I am not mistaken, it was in 1990 that Vaillancourt was blasted from the pulpit by Pivy saying he had lost his mind among many other things. It was my understanding that he was either elected or he was upset at Pivs nomination and thus his hasty departure. One thing is certain, His Pivness went from a "seminarian" to "priesthood" in 85' and then "Father General" in 89' after leading a successful coup against "Father" Denis Chicoine. And then shortly after, he was mad a "bishop" in 1991. So, yes I think to some degree he was thrown out like they do to everyone who is of no value to but them. Vaillancourt was smart, but I feel he was a bit strange.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Why don't you answer the questions being made to you in the previous post?

    4. In the early '90s, Fr. Vaillancourt was sent to the CMRI mission in Phoenix because he had cancer. Later, it was found out that Fr. Vaillancourt did not have cancer at all and was thrown out of the CMRI together with a Sr. de Montfort. Together, they founded Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in Spokane and the Congregation of the Missionary Sisters of the Holy Ghost, whose main work is the Catholic Research Institute and its various publications.

      I used to attend Fr. Vaillancourt's parish for a long time. The vast majority of the parishioners were people who were members of his family or were in some other way disgruntled with the CMRI or simply couldn't make it to Mass at the Mount.

      The story above was told to me by a friend, but it could be that he was sent to the missions for his power grab as well as cancer.

    5. Anon 4:44, Time my friend, time. I will as I find the time.

    6. Time? Ridiculous. You've had plenty of time to write many other comments, some long, some even attacking SV's and telling them to "repent", and you're saying you have to "find time" to answer a couple of simple questions?

    7. Are you preparing some long essay Critic? What's the hold up?

  7. Oh, Reader, you were very much on the money. I was born a cradle Catholic but couldn't take the Vatican II church and have meandered through other paths but not sedevacantism. I was once told by a priest that I worshipped only Latin, and that's why I enjoy dropping in on your erudite conversations.

    Your other observations are correct too.

    Thank you for teasing out the LOL of the Critic.

    Gratias tibi ago!

    1. Aufer nobis ista!

      In our lifetimes, we have found that a love of Latin is very often a sure sign of one's love for the Roman Church. Likewise, we have found that inattention to the Church's sacred tongue (as is evident with Dannie, Checkie, and Big Don) is a sign of alienation from her.

  8. Thank you The Critic for the telling us about Father Thomas Marie Vaillancourt.What about Father S Kasik who was once at the City of Mary and now lives in Spirit Lake.He taught also for many years at the Mount.Did he have problems too with Bishop Pivarunas?

    1. Fr. Jerald (Simeon Marie) Kasik left the CMRI in the mid-'90s due to a conflict with Bishop Pivarunas and established his own chapel in Idaho. He worked closely with Fr. Vaillancourt for many years. After Fr. Vaillancourt's recent hospitalization and incapacitation, he took over as pastor of his parish.

    2. He was accused of sexual abuse, which was without merit.

  9. I have been watching a series of videos put out by Immaculate Conception Church in Norwood on Youtube (WCBOhio) and have been very impressed by Fr. William Jenkins. His presentations are coherent, cogent, and interesting as well as full of various insights into the contemporary world.

    Compared to him, Tinhorn Tony only comes off as incompetent when it comes to giving speeches. It's vapid, contemporary, and snobbish without even a hint of concern for the salvation of men's souls. I remember watching a debate between him and Jenkins, where the only thing he was interested in besides show up his opponent was how much time his own comments lasted. (He brought a kitchen timer, if I recall correctly, and checked it consistently.)

    1. Very astute appreciation of Phony Tony's ineptitude at the podium and of Fr. Jenkins's polished style and confidence-inspiring presence. Breeding and education will always win out.

      We have painful memories of the Cheeseball's rambling, slangy, and bewilderingly ego-centric sermons. So do many people in Michigan.

    2. The SSPV is just as problematic as the other priests mentioned on this site. While they may be better in some ways, they are gravely lacking in others. I am not saying the CMRI is by any means perfect, I know their problems, but I would take them any day over SSPV and SGG. Actually, I wouldn't touch the two latter groups with a pole.

      I think a lot of confusion circles around the fact that many Catholics regard these men as clerics, once that myth is dispelled, one can objectively asses the situation.

      None of these men, trained in any of these organizations is being trained to enter the clerical state, they are being trained to become suspended non-clerical priests.

    3. "suspended non-clerical priests" — well put!

    4. Gene, maybe you are unaware but your Pivarunasis is the one who consecrated Danny Dolan as "bishop" at SGG--for a lil bit o' cash (30 pieces of silver) no doubt (no doubt same way Piv/CMRI got bishopric).

      "In 1992 Bp. Pivarunas, with a view towards assisting clergy formerly belonging to SSPX, asked Fr. Dolan to receive episcopal consecration. After considerable hesitation, Fr. Dolan agreed in mid-1993."

      P.S. At WHAT seminary did Pivaranus get his "usual" training: "Brother Tarcisius received the usual seminary training," and who ordained him? SSPV priests were trained at VC2 seminaries and Econe & were ordained by +Lefebvre. Now you give the facts about CMRI and let the readers judge.

    5. wasn't after considerable hesitation, Dolan was searching for someone to ordain him for years. I think that was a false statement by the author at

    6. Anon 4/7 2:39 pm.

      1. He's not my Pivarunus, he's his own man.
      2. Do you care to supply evidence that money was exchanged for the consecration of Bp. Dolan? I have heard this once before, yet, then, as now, no proof.
      3. Also, provide proof for the insinuation of the same regarding the Pivarunas consecration.
      4. I am not overly concerned about training, unless we are dealing with clerics, which we are not. The laity will judge the training of the non-clerical priests on a case by case basis, and their decision will indicate whether they will exercise their rights under canon 2261.
      5. SSPV and SSPX priests were and are today all trained in unapproved training centers, not seminaries. No lawful authority has sanctioned this training. No lawful authority has approved any of these priests fitness for ordination,

    7. From what we've seen, all that's needed to get into the MHT and Mater Dei diploma mills is the so-called rectors' OK and a self-declared vocation. All that's needed to stay appears to be an aptitude for brown nosing. Otherwise how could the Skipper and others have made it through?

      But Dannie has given us a new model of de-formation in the person of Uneven Steven. Now you don't even have to attend one of these Play Skools: Just declare your willingness to enter the "clerical" trade, find someone who'll say you "studied" under him, and voilà get yourself "ordained" by a dubious "bishop" looking for another gofer.

      Repugnant as the new model is, it's far less hypocritical that the pretense of the sede "seminaries."

      Gene's right: these guys have a vocation to be "non-clerical, suspended 'priests.'"

    8. Since the Church never intended for priests to study in private training centers or get ordained without any approval, we would have been better off without any of these priests. I do not believe any of these unlawfully trained priests should preach, as that role is specifically authorized by the Church. They should also be very cautious in the confessional as their only justification for absolving is the "danger of death."

      With that said, what really matters is that these priests know how to say mass, and follow the necessary rubrics, along with any other functional (for the sacraments) and liturgical aspects of the priesthood.

      Every one of these priests is automatically under censure for their illicit ordinations. Their only role, of you can call it that, is to answer the laity's request for the sacraments.

      Other than that, in every other way they are equivalent to laymen. The only lawful role these priests have is to being the sacraments to those who request them. So long as they are competent to do that, they are qualified for their role. There is no other role envisioned for them in the Code.

    9. Even though the sacraments are what they are, I really think this whole thing has gotten out of control, this whole traditionalists ordaining themselves and having "seminaries" and such. The bad fruits are just incredible, and the way some (most?) of these "priests" live.

      I agree with Gene that, at the most, they should just offer the sacraments and nothing more.

      I can't wait to see what will end up happening if something ever happens and there is some sort of restoration, and I hope I'm still alive to see it.

    10. Gene has perfectly captured the extremely limited rôle these men may play today and the reason for their necessary subordination to the laity, to which state in life they essentially belong and on whose fellow laymen's petition they must depend in order to exercise their illicitly (and in many cases doubtfully) conferred orders. They definitely are not, and never have been, "the Lord's portion." As laymen who (may) possess holy orders, they are the same as a laicized priest in the good ol' days.

      If the Restoration were to occur, we would wager that the Church would not permit the majority of these men to enter the clerical state, in particular the Americans or other nationals serving the U.S. "bishop"-led cults: they are impossibly malformed and beyond rehabilitation. For that very reason, these groups will never recognize the Restoration, unless such Restotration were accompanied by prodigious miracles. But it's improbable that Providence would sidestep the economy of salvation just to get the attention of these charlatans.

    11. "I am not overly concerned about training, unless we are dealing with clerics, which we are not. The laity will judge the training of the non-clerical priests on a case by case basis, and their decision will indicate whether they will exercise their rights under canon 2261.
      5. SSPV and SSPX priests were and are today all trained in unapproved training centers, not seminaries. No lawful authority has sanctioned this training. No lawful authority has approved any of these priests fitness for ordination,"

      Gene, you make no sense. What lawful authority has sanctioned PIV/CMRI? PIV is running a seminary--how is he/CMRI any more authorized than SSPV/X to do so???? You say you wouldn't touch SGG w/a pole, but PIV consecrated the "bishop" there, so how can you touch him?

      Dolan obviously has nothing but contempt for PIV/CMRI--he has publicly stated he was "cattle rustling" priests from him. [What kind of man/priest/bishop would publicly state such things?] Why would PIV consecrate him--except for money? Certainly you are not alleging a religous/sacred bond or even friendship between the two men?

      I believe that you don't like SGG, SSPX, and SSPV for some personal reason that you don't choose to disclose--probably you don't agree w/their standards or how they were applied to you and yours. Certainly you have given no objective reason to prefer CMRI over any other group. It's hard for the laity to decide as you put it when you conceal PIV's background.

      Which brings me to a final point to PL & the runners of this blog: it seems to me that because there is no Vatican to vet these priests, people are coming to you to find out the bios/backgrounds of the different priests. You say a breviary is beyond your scope, but could possibly start a trade association/list where you would list each priest and what their background is/any unsavory information etc. Not sure how it could be vetted so information is true and trustworthy vs just sour grapes/slander.

    12. Your clearinghouse idea is very attractive, and, as you suggest, it should come under the ægis of a lay governance association. We'll float your suggestion among some people we know.

      It would take a lot of work and some money, too, because, as you wisely note, staff would have to investigate each priest carefully to be sure that everything that's written is based on fact or verified report, not rumor or innuendo.

      It's probably fair to say now that any priest coming out of the unaccredited sede diploma mills can be classed as deficient in formation.

    13. Anon 4/8 6:32PM:

      I was not referring to the CMRI, I was answering another poster's points. You need to read the post I was answering to grasp the context of my reply.

      To answer your point, no lawful authority has sanctioned CMRI, their bishop, their priests, or their priest training center. They are in the same boat as the SSPX, SSPV, and SGG, and every other group.

      I think one of the reasons that the SSPX is so bent on recognition is that modernist Rome, as bad as they are, during the negotiations showed them the absolute need for submission to the hierachy, for seminaries to be approved and governed by lawful authority, for priests to have a mission, etc.

      The SSPX has lived in a state of denial right from the start. The Catholic Church does not allow private priest training centers, and does not allow priests to be ordained without their vocations and their fitness being judged. It does not allow priests to use their orders without being sent.

      To your last point: why I prefer CMRI over the others:

      First off, I believe they genuinely care about souls, and I admire their love of poverty, they are not getting fat or rich off the money donated to them. Secondly, and most importantly, I believe, out of all the groups, that they grasp their non-authoritative status the best. In my opinion, their former status as a de facto cult, has forced them to look into themselves and never want to go there again.

      One last point, I am not familiar with CMRI denying sacraments to Catholics based on private opinions, as the SSPX, SSPV, and SGG have done. If you think I am wrong on this, cite an instance of CMRI denying the sacraments to a Catholic for any reason not specifically taught by the canonists.

    14. Gene,

      We agree that the CMRI are in general more pastorally oriented than the other groups, at least from the many reports we've heard. We're not so sure about their commitment to being non-authoritative, at least on the part of the leadership.

      It was reported to us on on good authority that one of the nomenklatura in Omaha was teaching that Piv was a "missionary bishop with universal jurisdiction." If the account is true, then that's a big problem.

      In our experience, all these "bishop"-led groups start out by denying their authority but little by little begin to modify their position. The temptation is too great to stay on the straight and level. In the CMRI's case, their knowledge of their own dreadful formation probably restrains them from the excesses of the SGG-Brooksville cabal, but they are not entirely innocent. They may get worse now that they're no longer intimidated by Checkie and Big Don, whom we've completely exposed.

    15. PL,

      If what you say about Bp. PIvarunas is accurate, then I would like to know more about it. I have talked to many CMRI priests, and for the most part they seem to grasp their true status.

      FWIW, I agree with you that none of these men should ever have been ordained in the first place, with training at unapproved training centers and no lawful authority approving their fitness or vocation. What we are faced with now is how to handle the situation as it stands today,

      Let's look at the groups. The SSPX are in my view the worst. Their position is riddled with grave errors against the Faith, and their bishops and priests do act as though they are lawful pastors, even if they deny it.

      The SSPV openly and publicly usurp the authority of the Chuch by binding Catholics to their private opinion on the validity of the Thuc line.

      The SGG, I don't think we need to even look at that, your blog covers this point well enough.

      The CMRI in my view are the best among the bunch. With that said, I am certainly not blind to the dangers, and if they ever begin to usurp authority, or if what you say can be substantiated, I will have nothing more to to with them. My position in regards to them is provisional based on their good behavior in relation to their status as non-clerics. If that changes my view of them will change.

    16. Agree so much about Fr. Jenkins; my two concerns regarding moving thousands of miles to be near a church of his, to Florida, Boynton Beach area are:

      1. the fact that Fr. Jenkins has to travel so much and his age is no longer young, so

      2. Mass on Sunday and sometimes Monday only.

  10. I'm a sedevacantist who doesn't believe in the traditionalist chapel movement. I've never had any personal contact with the clergy you are targeting. I have read only a small portion of your blog, but I'll venture a few comments.

    Let's suppose that certain clergymen are gravely unfit: they're invalidly ordained, teach false doctrine, behave badly, give dangerous moral advice, make false claims to have authority, etc. Or they are outright heretics or schismatics. For whatever reason, no action against them can be expected from the secular or ecclesiastical authorities. Surely it is right for any man to warn others away from them in a way that is both morally upright and likely to be effective.

    This can be done courteously without losing forcefulness, in the style of Pope Pius X, St. Francis de Sales, Bishop John Milner, and Dr. Orestes Brownson among others. It can be done more harshly, as by St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome. Different situations call for different modes, but I think the former is generally more effective.

    I'm not aware of any respected Catholic controversialist who continually ridiculed his adversaries for petty personal faults, misfortunes, and idiosyncrasies, or who sprinkled his writing with insults that convey nothing but the writer's contempt for his foes. This is the stuff of daytime TV, not Catholic controversy. It greatly detracts from your credibility.

    As for your theory of aliquid pravism, it doesn't serve as a logical basis for your approval of all flavors of traditionalism – FSSP, SSPX, sede – as long as priests are well-educated. The proposition that something wrong in Rome allows priests, bishops, churches, etc. to arise and multiply without any legitimate authority, or even in opposition to the supposed authorities, needs to be proved, not assumed. The grave spiritual danger that naturally results from this pastoral free-for-all, which danger you would be the first to admit, is a standing argument against its prudence and indeed against its lawfulness. One cannot blithely appeal to the good of souls in defense of a practice that endangers souls.

    Let me suggest a better name for your position: aliquis potest-ism. Some ideas for a longer formulation:

    “Aliquis potest sacerdotem se facere, sed fidelibus incumbit probatio sacerdotum.”

    “Aliquis potest sua sponte vocari ad sacerdotium, sine interventu auctoritatis Ecclesiae; et aliquis potest irridere non idoneos qui hoc faciunt.”

    The grammar may need a little work, but you can fix it :)

    It's irresponsible and fanciful to leave it to future theologians to justify one's present actions. It would be logical to say, “Something is wrong; I'll have nothing to do with these un-Catholic novelties.” It's not logical to say, “Something is wrong, let's start up a global network of emergency chapels and seminaries while we figure out what it is.” He who proposes such a thing should make a convincing demonstration of its lawfulness and practicability.

    1. Each to his own, but our preference is for the combative, derisive prose of St. Jerome (and that of the ferocious Renaissance controversialists). These repulsive "clergy" have set themselves up as repositories of the Catholic faith, so it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate that they are NOT.

      As to our credibility, we allow the facts that we print, not our tone, make our argument against these men. People may bristle at our aggression but they must acknowledge the truth of our message, because we deal n facts: these contemptible louts, who for years have bullied others, have no brief. If you knew them, you would applaud our tactics and perhaps even join our staff. (We're always on the look out for competent , thought-provoking writers at ease with ecclesiastical Latin, [we'd only change a few things in your definitions, e.g., faciunt to faciant, in a characteristic clause with the antecedent idoneus -a -um].)

      We agree with you that nothing has been proved, but the fact remains that many traditionalists do believe they have justification (perhaps not lawful but out of necessity) for opposing the Establishment and independently providing themselves with clergy. Aliquid pravism is then an umbrella, not a network, under which they can all work together without suicidal wrangling for a restoration of tradition while providing themselves with what they consider in good conscience to be valid sacraments.

  11. The Critic asked someone about what happened down under with that Gilchrist fellow.We have friends in Wanganui,New Zealand who know much about him.Yes,a very strange man.It appears their SSPX priests had been very concerned about what he was doing to well meaning people and have had to deal with problems they have inherited.Gilchrists theological knowledge was basically zilch and was unable or unwilling to help people with their problems.He was known for using people then dumping them.One family had given much in funds,etc.It would seem he has no conscience what he does to people.The SSPX have taken over his former New Zealand base.Our friends do know more but we are not permitted to say anymore.If you read the comments to the articles of this website from July and August last year there was many people who sent in their views.It appears Bishop Pivarunas has taken no action which basically means he supports him.

    In regards to Fr Simeon Marie Kasik,we were told he is a decent fellow and has a high HQ.From what we understand he was told to leave CMRI over problems with Bishop Pivarunas.

  12. Is Father Adam Cyr still with Father Simeon?

    1. Fr. Adam Cyr was the pastor of Holy Redeemer Church in Seattle (now run by Fr. Carlos Ercoli and under Bishop Donald J. Sanborn). Fr. Cyr left the parish several years ago to set up a hermitage.

  13. Don't know anything about Father Adam Cyr.Does anyone know what happened to Father Francis Bertold?Yes,Father Simeon Kasik has a high IQ and is smart.The CMRI lost about five priests who had problems with Bishop Pivarunas between 1990-1996.

  14. NOTE:

    Previous comment removed owing to parental objection.

    The comment was removed because the certain words may have been disturbing to younger readers according to PL's independent parent committee.

    As a matter of editorial policy, PL accedes to the committee's requests in such cases.

  15. Does anyone know how long ago Dolan stated he was cattle rustling priests from CMRI?Is it correct the first priest he ordained was trained with them(Fr Cyr)

    1. We don't know the date. As to Cyr, we recall that both fathers Cyr, Jeremy and Adam, "studied" at MHT in Warren, MI. After Adam would not go to Cinci (he originally wanted to work with Bp. McKenna following ordination), he became independent. He may have been affiliated in some way with the CMRI for a while. Perhaps someone else knows more details. We're not certain if Dannie or Piv ordained Adam.

    2. Dolan ordained him. I still have the newsletter with the picture of his parents sitting at a table at the get-together after the ordinations talking to Fr. Cekada - his parents were referred to in the caption as "guests" or something like that.

  16. Jerry Cyr was baited by extravagant vestments, chalices and fine dining by Danny. Jerry would finish his "classes" at the ever opulent Mater Dei "Seminary," and Dannie would pay his way to Cincinnati. As for Adam Cyr, Piv treated him like a child (because he had a very low IQ) and he joined Dannies cult. He eventually couldn't handle the stresses of running a cult parish, gave it to Dannie and joined some group in South America. That's the last anyone has heard.
    If there are any updates, please inform us.

    1. The last we heard, Adam gave his chapel to Carlos Ércoli, formerly of MHT and the Brooksviille cult. and took off to be a hermit, so the South American update is real news. Although Ércoli got away from Big Don and left Dannie in a lurch for a Xmas singer, he still seems to associate with the Brooksville cult. We saw pictures of Big Don and the clone at his chapel. It appears that Ércoli's recently moved into a very nice real church building.

      As for Jeremy, someone told us that when he was a deacon he preached at Dannie's Columbus chapel, and even appeared there once or twice for Mass.

  17. Jeremy was ordained, wasn't he? By Dolan, I think. He works as an insurance salesman in New England last I heard. Never told anyone what so traumatized him that he ran fast and far from the priesthood and the cults. Not even his parents.

    As for Adam, he was living with Fr. Simeon a few years ago Idaho somewhere. This is the first I ever heard about a South American adventure. It doesn't sound like something he'd do. At all.

    1. To Anonymous April 5, 2016 at 8.34 AM. Comments in July and August last year, there was a big white lie in it, from a family in Melbourne. It stated funds from one family in Wanganui to pay for airfares. There was no evidence to support the comment. In any case, Fr Gilchrist travelled by road in the North Island of New Zealand. Some Catholics are in a pretty sad state. Imagine the move from Perth to Melbourne, then to Wanganui and back to Perth, again back to Wanganui where the move is into four different addresses. I can understand, to a certain extent, the attack on the Priest.

    2. An addition to Anonymous April 5, 2016 at 8:34 AM. What about the situation where 3 SSPX Priests agreed to visit a patient in Wanganui Hospital? Each time one agreed to visit, the sibling went to wait but no show! In the end arrangement was made for Fr Gilchrist who very kindly went to visit the patient. Almighty God knows what is happening. Let us just be prepared.

  18. I had that calendar. IN the future I will be ordering from the SSPV because found description of it I like, unless another more intriguing suggestion appears on the comments when I get to them:

    $8 now including shipping should I want to order this year's. The SGG calendar for 2017 had errors, too, that I could see, as I recall.

    The Roman Catholic Calendar
    2200 Smelter Avenue
    Black Eagle, Montana 59414