Saturday, June 4, 2016

THE MIGHTY WORKING




"'That is well said," replied Candide, "but we must cultivate our garden." Voltaire

In Dirtbag Dan's "Bishop's (?) Corner" of April 24, we read the following hysterical demand for increased lay servitude to the five malingering $GG "clergy":
... true communion is demonstrated not only at the Communion Rail, but also at church in general. If everybody does something, at least a little, it would get done, and done well, without being a burden for the same few who do so much. So, help us by your contribution not only in the collection, but also by cleaning. An hour or two some Saturday, a little gardening in the evening, some ironing at home or church, these are all needs of ours. Drop off a meal, pick up a project, or a broom or a rake. If everyone does a little, it would get done. If you need a suggestion, speak to me.
If we were Gerties, this is what we'd tell His Idleness to his face:
You first, Buster. What little something will you, Erroneous Antonius, Lurch, Uneven Steven, and the Forlorn Finn be doing along with us to get all this manual work "done, and done well"? Why can't you needy slouches "commune" a bit by pitching in with a little gardening, ironing, cleaning, or fixing your own meals? If the weekly collection isn't enough to pay for normal maintenance and upkeep, maybe you all should stop going on all those frequent, expensive trips to Florida, Mexico, and Ecuador!
On second thought,  if Dannie were a leader and not a moocher, he'd be the first one to "pick up a project, or a broom or a rake." And he'd make sure those four other loafers showed a little hustle, too. But from all appearances,  the "clerical" do-nothings can't be bothered to make the least effort: Just take a close look at the above photo of Dannie's shabby "cloister garden." (BTW, up there on the roof, is that a turkey buzzard poised to scavenge all the rot and decay at $GG?)

The unsightly, tawny stems look like they're four inches high, while the dandelion heads have ripened into nasty blowballs. Indeed, the wretched patch has been so neglected that many dying  plants have already dispersed their noxious achenes to befoul other areas of the diseased cult plot. We'd wager that millions of 'em have zoomed over to infect the well-kept, healthy lawns of respectable nearby residences.
You know, they shouldn't call Dannie's littered dump SGG any longer: that blighted wasteland is SPG, Satan's Play-Ground, as one witty correspondent cleverly observed.

We've asked this question before, but it's worth asking again:
Why couldn't one of these work-shy, malformed deadbeats have applied some commercial dandelion killer at the beginning of spring?
A few minutes of mild exercise earlier in the season would've prevented the eyesore. And while we're on the subject of eyesores, why didn't one of these idlers edge the mulch beds around His Delicacy's sickly flowers? (As we've observed elsewhere, all that's missing in the picture is a rusting pick-up truck on cinder blocks to prove hillbillies are squatting on ratty Rialto Road.)

The answer to both questions is that the five of them are too busy wasting their time on dumb projects, such as Cheeseball's amateur Internet apostolate, Dannie's printing sloppy calendars and compiling incompetent ordines, or the cult masters' snooping around trying to find out about others' episcopal lineages. Dannie has enough problems of his own in that respect, so he's fooling no one when he dispatches lay stooges to forage for information. (BTW, if "One Hand" or Big Don tries to attack, these men are ready 'n' waiting for 'em.)

As the cult center continues to crumble, His Inefficiency should be rounding up dirty-Gertie work crews instead of nosing into other people's business. From his own account of the violent rainstorm bursting through the cult center's side vent, carelessly left open during the enormously expensive HVAC replacement, Dirtbag Dan better put the cultlings to work ASAP.

The beaten-down cult victims obviously are resentful. Otherwise His Audacity wouldn't have to shame them into spending more of their precious time slaving away while he and his goof-off posse refuse to lift a sticky finger.  Charity commands us to help the "SPG" press-gang endure the monotonous hours of exhausting drudgery that Master Dan has in store for them. To that end, we wrote a work song — you know, something in the spirit of "Whistle While You Work," or, in the Gerties' case, "Sing While You Slave."

A few weeks back, May 7-8 to be precise, in his grubby "Corner," His Nesciency babbled how he admired the movie tune "At the Codfish Ball," performed at the $GG Shirley Temple Festival and Spring Wing Ding. (Wasn't the event "denominated" — as "One Hand" so learnedly wrote — "Cartloads of Harm"?  Uhhh ... we forget.)  Anyhow ... we thought, why not just change the words since Li'l Daniel digs the ditty?  Gerties can start memorizing this week as they get set for an arduous summer season of forced labor. Let Curly Top help lighten the load: all you need to do is tippity-tap right here for a sing along, substituting our brand-new lyrics:

“At the Cultlings’ Fête”

Next Sunday morn you’re all recruited
To work from noon to six.
All the suckers and the hicks
Are keen to donate.


It’s some chain gang: they’ll all curse, “Dang!”
Both the hilljack and the knave,
They'll show up to be my slave,
As I tailgate.

Come along, and grab a broom,
Break your back, and sweep my room,
While I choose what to consume
At the Cultlings’ Fête.


Gerties raking wild crab grass
Step on shards of shattered glass;
Granny busts her ancient —
At the Cultlings’ Fête.


Frazzled mommies fix our meal
Gratis (What a deal!);
The widows iron 'til they upchuck,
But they can’t press duck for my swell potluck.


Dads are doomed to mow the lawn
(They won’t finish until dawn),
While I lazily look on
At the Cultlings’ Fête.

Come along and grab a broom,
Break your back, and sweep my room,
While I choose what to consume
At the Cultlings’ Fête, etc.


On second thought, don't waste your time. Get out of the cult today!

186 comments:

  1. Tomorrow's Sgg letter states Fr.Mckenna is taking a vacation to Austria on his miles accumulated during his mission work. Shouldn't these miles be used for actual church use, not a vacation and tour of Europe? And who pays for his food and lodging while on his vacation?

    It also talks about Dolan's cats eating leftover tuna salad. Why didn't they save the tuna salad for their own lunches so that they wouldn't have to beg their parish to give them meals?

    These men don't make sense. They are so wasteful, but then expect their parish to make up for their poor decisions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People just don't get it: you are there to support them. You are there to clean for them, cook for them, and give them money. They hold the sacraments hostage. You get to sacrifice your vacations, so that they can have their European vacations and Bishop's Lounge vacations. You are the ones supporting their talks and book publishing to add to their pride.

      Stop giving them money and letting them take advantage of your generosity. Demand that they stop living laviously and using you as their own personal bank account, servant, and personal chef. Make them take responsibilty for their bad decisions. Basically, tell them to act like grown adults instead of royalty or like the Novus Ordo Archbishops and Bishops who thought it was okay to live in luxury.

      Delete
  2. Yes, I was just thinking - I wonder how many of the cultlings have been to Europe? What kind of vacations will the people there be taking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most haven't. Their only purpose is to serve these prodigal sons.

      Dannie knows his slaves, and he loves to rub their noses in the fact that he can waste their resources at will, with no worry.

      Delete
  3. Sanborn's sermon today touched on social media, music, immodest clothing, swimming with opposite sex, a woman's role, etc.

    I'm guessing he read your last few posts on what the kids at MHT actually do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting enough, he touched on eating out of pleasure equals gluttony (Says the man obsessed with food, has a cook, and has a favorite upscale restaurant http://thenouvellecuisine.com )

      He also says he notices women's tight skirts and how they walk. Is this guarding his eyes and avoiding occasions?

      I would like to see a menu of MHT food. Is it bland? Is it just food for nourishment or is food for pleasure? He doesn't seem very in shape if he only eats for nourishment.

      And the meals cooked for the nuns, are these flavorless meals? The ones that were said to have desserts every night? What is their menu if food is only for nourishment and not pleasure?

      Delete
    2. Anon 10:37pm, Necessary(basic)food does not have to be bland & tasteless. It's not sinful to eat tasty food. God gave us spices to enjoy our food. It's the quantity that is sinful - not the quality.

      Delete
    3. If you study the menu of the Nouvelle Cuisine restaurant, with its veal à la blue with blue crab and roquefort sauce and its escargot bourguignon, then you could well conclude that any client of that establishment is guilty of gluttony by "using exceedingly exquisite food and drink or food and drink whose cost is beyond one's own state and financial circumstances" (Dictionary of Moral Theology). Such fare as we find on that menu is certainly inappropriate for "clergy." But then, in the cult, there are always exceptions for the privileged. Perhaps he's trying to get the non-élite laity to cut back on their discretionary restaurant expenses to free up more cash for his collection basket.

      Delete
    4. I don't think the food should be bland, but I agree, about him being pleasantly plump for someone who only eats for nourishment. Sanborn is well known for his expensive taste in both wine and food, but what is not is how he is able to pay for all of it?

      I'm not sure if desserts every night constitutes for gluttony, but if that is true that the nuns get desserts every night, that seems a bit much. For a nun to take a vow of poverty, but then expect the parishioners to make them breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and include desserts on a daily basis? This seems very odd. How does Sanborn justify this behavior for his lavished nuns?

      How does he justify having a seminary and convent right next to each other?

      Delete
    5. The cult masters don't believe they have to be consistent. Anyway, the rules are for the little people. Big donors, "clergy," and "religious" always enjoy exceptions to the rules with which he binds others.

      And when it comes to himself, no rules apply, as when he chastised one of his "priests" for dining at a burger chain. One of the delinquent's buddies, a Sanbornite "priest" himself and fearful of being caught chowing down at a taco joint, recognized the hypocrisy when he complained to others that Big Don ate at fast-food restaurants at the airport.

      Obviously he didn't get the memo that some animals are more equal than others.

      Delete
    6. If overeating is so sinful, then why did Big Don take that tub-of-guts Uneven Steven with him to Europe?

      Back in 20114, Big Don joked about his over-nourished bag boy's being "forever thin". (Click here, and go to page 6.)

      What kind of example for the Europeans is that?

      Delete
    7. I realize this is an old letter, but he states they need an addition to the seminary? When have they ever been so full that they needed an addition? Was this one of his malformed predictions, just like Selway predicted he would have over 100 students in the school now?

      "The seminary is at its absolute capacity this year. At this writing, we cannot take anyone else. We will not ordain anyone until June of 2016, when two are slated for sacred orders. Things may change by the end of this academic year, but already we have to raise the idea of adding on an addition to this seminary"

      Delete
    8. That probably was just one of his frequent enthusiasms. They've got four clowns now, according to reports. They can't keep guys there long enough to fill the spots they have, let alone think of expanding.

      He might have just been practicing his fund-raising spiel. Remember his big $30K plan? That fizzled right after he announced he would be making a proposal. We guess he doesn't want people to forget that their purpose in life is to generate cash for him and his wild-'n'-crazy schemes.

      Delete
    9. When are their parishioners going to wake up and see their exaggerations are in order to make people think they are bigger and more powerful than they really are? Oh, and to pretend they are in need of money, but is the money to pay for what they need, or in this case-pretend to need, or their vacations to Europe and fancy restaurants?

      I wonder how much money they have milked from the parish in Arizona. Asking them for "needs," in order to pocket the money that they don't really use? Do they not realize with the announcement that the convent land is bought and approved, the only thing Sanborn wants from them is their money and their land so that they can sell it to use as his compound expands to a convent and cemetery?

      Has anyone listened to his crazy sermons lately? And also noticed where he is expanding his missions?




      Delete
    10. Yes, we have noticed how his missions are expanding. Tune in this Saturday as we discuss how the Donster intends to become MR. WORLDWIDE.

      We hope somebody in Arizona is awake. Discipline Donnie's big new adventure is going to require a lot of capital to finance it, and they're the only cash cow that he can milk.

      Delete
    11. In response to: Anonymous June 5, 2016 at 10:15 PM -
      Oh for crying out loud. Doesn’t Sin-burn, with his near perfect Catholic education and background, let alone attending and graduating from the best Bishop’s University ever, know about custody of the eyes? Why the heck would he even be studying tight skirts on women, let alone how they walk, let alone even looking? And then to talk about it in a sermon? Excuse me??? What an absolute creep. Pray God he does indeed retire soon, and retreats to a hermitage or better yet, a secluded dessert island, sans Mary Ann, Ginger, and Mrs. Lovey Howell, never to be seen or heard of again.(I suppose Gilligan's Island is a mortal sin.)

      Delete
    12. For a women to wear high heels is a sin too, according to him. Moderate heels are ok but high heels, absolutely not.

      Delete
    13. I think Sanborn is losing it. He is well aware that his congregation thinks he's going nutty, and they only go for the sacraments. Have you seen how many leave for his sermons? No one cares anymore for his crazy hell-fire sermons or ones like the crazy one given this week. Quite honestly, his sermons are scandalous. He talked about things he has noticed lately: Why is he noticing women in high heels, tight skirts, tight shirts, etc.? In his newsletters, he constantly talks about sodomites and even beastality. I've seen children walk out of Mass with letter in hand. They don't need to ban TV, they need to ban Sanborn! He's putting crazy ideas into these innocent minds.

      The guy has major issues and needs help.

      Delete
    14. This guy is self-destructing before our very eyes. What's more, he's making his own cult followers uneasy on their social media pages.

      The tension will be too much to bear in the swampland, so the powers will have to act soon. (They may have already acted.) Let's also hope the good people in AZ see what's happening and get rid of him and his gang before they're swept up in this salacious obsessiveness.

      We may have guessed at the cause of the all this loopiness, which we'll share later in the week.

      Delete
    15. If the cult master had studied his theology and Latin as intensely as he seems to have studied women's bodies and their apparel, he'd be a prodigy of Catholic learning!

      Not even the most practiced voyeur could surpass the gritty, granular details in that sermon. And the number of times he repeated "dirty" and "filthy" is unnerving, to say the least.

      We can only pray that parents brought along earplugs for their children.

      Delete
    16. Sexual pleasure was mentioned more than a few times-all while the little children were sitting in the pews.

      Delete
    17. Response to: Anonymous June 5, 2016 at 10:37 PM –against my better judgment I checked out the web site of Nouvele Cuisine. Has anyone looked at the picture of the chef and his wife?
      Does Isabelle’s sleeveless top meet all of the modesty standards and mandates of Sin-burn? Or, does he have an understanding with the owner and when he makes a reservation the female staff change into and serve him in nuns habits, or gunny sacks, when he arrives?
      Or, can one assume Isabelle wears “sensible” footwear and is exonerated from fulfilling the rest of Sin-burn’s dress code?

      Delete
    18. Exceptions are ALWAYS made for Sanborn and his culties. There are photos of him and his seminarians or priests eating at this place in his newsletters.

      Delete
    19. At least the place looks upscale enough for them to play that devil music that cracker Barrell is known to play!

      Did anyone look at the prices? After an appetizer, glass of wine, meal, dessert, and after dinner coffee, that's about $60-80 a person! And all the priests go here??? Unbelievable! Those parishioners needs to stop donating their money to these people until they stop spending it like this.

      If he eats like this in town, what does this man eat like when he travels around Europe? From the photos on his site, it looks as though he frequents a good number of restaurants. Maybe he should stick to not traveling and have his cook make him a healthy alternative and put him on a low calorie diet. He might be a little happier if he didn't indulge himself so much and learned to sacrifice for the good of his parish.

      Delete
    20. Rank has its privileges in Tradistan.

      Delete
    21. Years ago, I believe it was in the late 1990’s, before he had himself made a “bishop,” Sin-burn & Dolan, who had already had himself made a bishop, journeyed to Europe during Lent. I don’t recall for what reason, if it was to ordain someone, con money & support out of someone, try to take control of some chapel or school, or what. France featured prominently in this visit, and of course all of the stops they made included fine French cuisine. Neither of them made any bones about dispensing themselves from the fasting and abstinence of Lent, and they openly discussed how they enjoyed their fine dining. Yet, if it is a lowly layperson who has a once in a lifetime opportunity to visit Europe during Lent, no dispensation will be granted by either of these two. I know of several instances where this was the case.

      Delete
  4. That looks like a healthy feast upon the roof! Why not grab it, pluck it, before it roosts?
    Stuff it, and make some dandelion salad,
    And you have a feast for any prelate's palate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For anyone who can stomach reading the latest $SG Bishop’s Corner, Dolan devotes a paragraph to an update on the latest kitty carnage rampage and a reference to their tuna salad treat. I realize he continues to make such reports simply to spite Pistrina, Lay Pulpit, and any other venues that dare criticize such ridiculous and unnecessary reports. I understand it can be good public relations for a man such as Dolan to present himself as possessing a human, sentimental side. The so-called keeping and nurturing of a pet dog or cat can con some people into believing such a man is human and has feelings and some values, just like them. Cut to the chase – it can bring in some bucks. However, I question the laypeople who encourage him to make such reports. I refer to the creeps who comment on his cats and their adventures and let Dolan know how much they appreciate and enjoy his stories. He is able to “connect” to some aspect or element of their personalities and it seems to me, keep them in his control. Why would anyone appreciate reading or hearing about “one bunny eye looking at someone accusingly?”
    Hey, it can be a 2 way street. It’s not just some of the trad clergy who are disgusting and in some cases, outright frauds. What about the laypeople who support and encourage them? Are some of them cut from the same fabric as their masters? Maybe they deserve each other. It’s just so sad and tragic that some of these laypeople can influence and force their families to subscribe to such influences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I think is ironic is these men like to discuss child worship, Hollywood worship, worldly worship, etc., but they can't see that they are acting like the Egyptians worshipping cats? It isn't just Dolan and his obsession with his cats, but Sanborn has seminarians bathe his cats as one of his chores. Wasn't a seminarian also kicked out for spraying something on his cat because he was tired of it having full access to anywhere in the seminary?

      I find this not only odd, but for Dolan to put it in his newsletter every week is just sick.


      Delete
    2. Scut the Prefect wrongly accused other seminarians of dousing Big Don's cat, while the real culprit, a favorite of the rector's, got off. The ugly incident resulted in three "seminarians" leaving the pesthouse on foot in the dead of night. It must've been safer to risk a dark highway than stay at that madhouse.

      We can see Appalled's reasoning that a public display of affection for a pet has its PR value. But usually people who use this ploy make sure the image projected is suffused with a gauzy cuteness where the pets are little angels full of sweetness and light.

      What puzzles us about Dannie is the sheer diabolical bloodiness of his animal stories. Instead of fluffy kitties nuzzling cuddly baby bunnies, Wee Dan's familiars "breakfast" on the innocent little victims' innards and then drag the tiny, mangled corpses to the doorstep as a sacrificial offering to the cult master.

      Such scenes seem calculated to impress sado-masochists, for they hardly stir up the warm and fuzzy thoughts that induce normal people to forgive bad behavior in a pet lover. But His Aberrancy knows his followers are degenerates, so he gives 'em what both he and they like: savagery.

      Delete
    3. I think it is sick to talk about cats eating rabbits. I'm surprised someone doesn't come out and tell him how disgusting it is to hear about his stupid cats week after week. Not only is it sick, but it is weird for a man over 50 to be so obsessed with cats, and it's almost a characteristic of narcissism for him to think anyone cares about his cats and their ways. If he said the cats are keeping mice or rats away, it would still be a disgusting comment for a church bulletin, but that the cats bring him dead bunnies??????? Something is mentally wrong with this man.

      Delete
    4. In Big Don's June 5 sermon, he strongly condemned the "relishing of violence" with bloodshed and torture as "bad." Looks like Dannie doesn't think much of the Donster's opinion. Virtually every cat story involves blood and guts, which Wee Dan relates with gusto.

      Delete
  6. Anyone in the know on here care to help this lady on the TradCath Forum with good information about this question?: http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/209/another-bishop-rumor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On Saturday, we'll theorize a little more on this very subject. We don't promise certainty, however. It's just an inspired inference based on some recent developments.

      Delete
  7. GeneJune 7, 2016 at 4:18 AM
    Asked regarding:
    tradcath.proboards.com/thread/209/another-bishop-rumor

    I hear this is more then just A rumor. It appears that most of these traddie centers are worse then the MOB when it comes to paying back THE DONS who donated their monies to establish these so called Houses of Worship.

    The fact is they are Lifetime investments for certain family members only, who seek to be King of The Hill, until the Second Coming. Of course this is all done at the expense of the local peasants who must pay tribute to the Local Godfather.

    Make sure you come with an offer they cannot refuse, or you will be refused the Sacraments.

    Don't forget and Kiss that Ring, lest the Godfather KISS YOU GOOD-BYE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent analogy. In the case of the SW Ohio/B'ville cult, there's no Vito, Michael, or even Sonny. There all Fredos.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your answer. For myself, I have never had anything to do with the SGG/Sanborn wing of sedevacantism.

      If there is going to be another vagrant bishop, I see it as one more problem for the Church.

      The questioner on Trad Cath posed a good question, but it may also be good if some on here in the know were there to educate Carholics about these guys.

      Many Catholics have no clue about what really goes on in the "traditional world," and believe it or not, many are not even aware of this blog.

      Anyway the discussion forum is TradCath at Proboards where the questioner put forth the question, if anyone is so inclined to answer.

      Delete
    3. Gene, this new "Bishop" has been groomed to be in this position before he even graduated from high school. He is not backed by intelligence, piety, zeal for souls, prudence, or any other qualifying character. He's backed financially, which is what Sanborn needed. Since he has finally passed the 35 year old age requirement a few years back, it was only a matter of time before the big announcement was made. The people of MHT and the Michigan chapel have been looking forward to Sanborn's retirement, for probably as long as they have seen him as a bishop. They are tired of him and his coldness, dim, and hell-fire sermons. They want someone new in there, and someone young who they can control. It is quite obvious who this is, the big 3 are the puppet masters and this new "Bishop" is there puppet. He will come in with as much hell-fire as his teaching master, but depending upon what the controlling families want, the new rules will be implemented. They will let everyone think it is he who controls everything, but it won't be. The parishioners will be smart if they start kissing up to the 3 families who will be in control. They will never be a part of the inner circle, but at least they won't be the target of their cruelty.

      Delete
  8. "For a women to wear high heels is a sin too, according to him." Suppose it is time to drop in these quotes:

    "The whole world was wrapt in temporal interests, and Christians forgot the glorious things that were done in the days of the apostles; instead of rivalling their brilliant example, they burned with the desire of the empty riches of the world, and strained every never to increase their wealth. Piety and religion were banished from the lives of the priests, and fidelity and integrity were no longer found in the ministers of the altar; Charity and discipline of morals were no longer visible in their flocks. The men combed their beards, and the women painted their faces; their very eyes were tinted and their hair told a lie...They scoffed at their prelates in their pride and they tore each other to pieces with envenomed tongues, and seemed to destroy each other with a fatal hatred. They despised the simplicity and humility demanded by faith, and permitted themselves to be guided by the impulses of worthless vanity; they contemned the world only in words. Did we not deserve, then, the dreadful horrors of persecution that have burst upon us?" St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage

    https://books.google.com/books?id=_ghNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=their+very+eyes+were+tinted+and+their+hair+told+a+lie&source=bl&ots=2bLdjmAziO&sig=IQh-iDNUebILVHe-1-q-dgYKZOM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOluTJ1JbNAhXIeD4KHYfNCaoQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=their%20very%20eyes%20were%20tinted%20and%20their%20hair%20told%20a%20lie&f=false

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "....women painted their faces..."

      Do you think wearing make-up is sinful? I know this debate went around a traditional chapel years ago when I was a kid and those who believed it was looked at those who wore it like they were hookers. Ridiculous.

      Delete
  9. St. John Baptist Vianney: "He was an enemy of dancing. You should note that the dances of that time were far different from the immoral and outrageous dances of today. The young ladies were completely covered and had skirts that reached to the floor. If he condemned those dances, what would he say about ours? His condemnation went so far as to deny absolution to those who would not promise to stop going to such dances. Many persons would go to other churches to receive absolution. Hearing this, he simply commented: If other priests want to send them to Hell, it is up to them."
    http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j084sdCureArs_8-4.htm

    "The priest of Ars subjected himself to a strict fast. In this way he sought to reduce the requirements of his life to minimum. One meal sufficed him for the whole day. He abstained from alcohol except wine at holy Mass and normally ate only a little black bread and one or two potatoes cooked in water: he would prepare sufficient of these to last him the whole week, keeping them in an earthenware pan, and often they were covered with a coating of mold. Frequently he fasted for a whole day until, overcome, he would collapse from physical weakness. In view of this mode of life he had no need, of course, of a housekeeper – apart from the fact that his house stood almost empty anyway. Since he considered that his self-mortification was all too inadequate, he had a special penitential garment made, which he wore next to his skin, and which, by reason of the constant friction against his body, was soon stained a reddish brown. For the most part he slept on a bare mattress when he was not sleeping on a bundle of wood down in the cellar... To a priest who complained about the indifference of people in his parish, St. John Vianney answered: "You have preached, you have prayed, but have you fasted? Have you taken the discipline (a self imposed scourge)? Have you slept on the floor? So long as you have done none of these things, you have no right to complain."

    https://www.olrl.org/lives/vianney.shtml

    There is still blood on the wall of his rectory from his scourgings. He also wept (really) for the conversion of his parish. But he also bought off musicians (w/his own money) who were coming to play for dances and I think he may have also bought off some tavern owners (but could be my faulty recollection of bio I read recently). Nowadays VC2 prelates insist abortion, sodomy, polygamy and pedophilia must be legalized under "religious liberty" (governments MUST be secular!). Meanwhile St John Vianney was spending his own money and working to enact blue laws to keep sheep from falling into sin.

    Sanborn's words aren't the problem. He knows the condition of his flock. Have heard him say in a sermon no longer attends wedding receptions of those he marries because he knows immoral actions will take place. St John Vianney wouldn't have married them--of course, you all would have a fit. But it is not his words, it is that, like Corapi, (and like St Cyprian states) the condemnation is all words not backed up by action/prayer and penance.

    Meanwhile, you all are so out of control (meanwhile practicing "perfect acts of contrition"(!)), you cannot even tolerate the words of condemnation. It is one thing to condemn hypocrisy (as Jesus and John the Baptist did of the Pharisees), but it is another thing to be a Herodian and to condemn John the Baptist and Jesus Christ because you are justifying your own immorality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! You have to be kidding! Do you not think he attends parties, wedding receptions of his "elect" parishioners? You must not know him well. Do you not think he makes the exceptions to the rules for his chosen ones? I think what is being condemned is his hypocrisy! When you have money, you are handed a golden ticket to pass by the rules and do as you please.

      Delete
  10. I am not even a sedevacantist, having discovered this blog by accident. While I would agree that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Bishops Sanborn, Dolan, and Fr. Cekada, the sermon everyone is whining about is not one of them. I thought it was excellent. If you don't like his preaching, man up and assist at Mass somewhere else. Stop your girlish whining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a priest studying how the women dress, walk, and wear tight skirts. This is a man preaching things from a pulpit that shouldn't be said in such graphic terms, nor should a newsletter talking about sodomy, beastality, etc. be put out for the innocent to pick up and read.

      This is a priest who gives exceptions to those who give him enough money (aka payoffs) so they do not have to follow the rules.

      Are you guys really comparing him to ST. John Vianney? Did the saint take payoffs and make exceptions? Did he turn the other way when it was one of his big donors who were breaking the rules? Or possibly even 3 of his big donors? Did the Saint have a cook to make his organic meals or feast at $50-$100 a plate Belgium restaurants? Did the saint have a cat that was treated better than the parishioners? Did the saint have plans to sell off a mission chapel to fund whatever his next project is by tricking a group of people into giving them their chapel?

      Did the saint make exceptions for his own priests to break these rules, the ones mentioned in his sermon?

      You have a lot to learn about the hypocrite Sanborn.

      Delete
    2. I think it's more a suggestion that Sanborn imitate Vianney to save his flock. However, members of the congregation could also imitate Vianney. As it is, seems all--prelates AND sheep--are in danger of losing their souls.

      Rather than worrying about the rich(er) people 'getting away' w/sin have faith in Jesus words: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." [mainly because for the love of their money everyone else lets them get away w/murder] and "Remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented."

      Delete
    3. One day, perhaps, a grievously disturbing letter sent to some trade bishops in the last months of 2009, at the height of the $GG School Scandal, may surface. The late Bp. McKenna later forwarded a copy of that communication to the Donster, who in turn replied to it. More interesting than the letter itself would be the content of the reply, which the dearly departed Dominican refused to destroy before he shared it with a colleague. Then we would all see how firm are this cult master's Catholic principles. The custodian of that document should consider what an ace in the hole he possesses.

      Delete
    4. Interesting.....

      Delete
    5. Oh, it's more than interesting. It's disgusting, and the reply is shocking.

      Delete
    6. I would like to know Sanborn's reply, and how any justification can be made for disturbing behavior.

      Delete
  11. Anon June 7, 10:04, did an excellent job at describing the parish at MHT. I've seem so much if this at the church. Thank goodness someone else sees it too! The piety and charity are gone from the parish and the shepherds who are leading this awful flock. Surely, Sanborn will be punished by his bad example.

    Thank you for being able to describe what a disaster this place is so that others are warned to stay away

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sanborn said that a skirt has to cover the knee. Who is making these rules? Why not all the way to the floor like a nun? Showing a calf is okay but the knee is not? Showing a calf in the dreaded high heels is okay? Sleeveless is immodest but add a couple inches for a sleeve and now it's okay? It makes no sense. I think most Catholic women know when a skirt is too short. Too short and just above the knee are two different things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The preconciliar pontiffs would disagree with you.

      Delete
    2. Well, that may be, but the preconciliar pontiffs must have changed their minds about the below-the-ankle standard. Just look at some of the papal audience photos from the '40s.

      Delete
    3. Hey, NCTradCatholic:

      The Reader is correct. In understanding and applying Catholic morality, that is.

      At some point in time (in the past, probably the Victorian era), if a British lady would so much as expose her ankles, she would be deemed to be soliciting.

      This (Church of England morality) appears to be stricter than the standards of Catholic morality in the years immediately preceding V2.

      So it is probable that if the pre-conciliar pontiffs were alive today, they may not necessarily disagree with Anon at June 7, 11:06pm.

      Catholic morality does not operate in a vacuum. Principles do not change. But application of principles may have to be modified in different times and circumstances.

      Delete
  13. NCTradCatholic, I think you are missing my point. If covered is modest, why would showing half a leg be modest? Why would a short sleeve be modest? Most of the arm is exposed. If these are considered modest, then why draw the line at the knee or a sleeveless shirt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more female flesh that is exposed, the greater the occasion of sin (at least impure thoughts) for men. It's really quite simple.

      Delete
    2. Then maybe men should do what the Bible suggests, pluck your eye out if it is causing you to sin.

      Men can own up and guard their eyes, and not look at how women walk in their tight skirts, such as this bishop i oogling these women to see how difficult it is for them to walk.

      Delete
    3. NCTradCatholic, if that's the case then how are knee length skirts and short sleeves acceptable? Do you feel women should completely cover up? (Ankle length skirts/long sleeves)

      Delete
    4. You need to brush up on what the Church has traditionally taught regarding modesty. Here's an FSSP source:

      http://www.catholicmodesty.com/Homily_16_May_2004.htm

      Here's another non-sedevacantist source:

      http://www.catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html

      Delete
    5. All that is very good, but remember, NCTrad, that benefactors always will get a break. The Donster condemns denim, too, but if you've got the big bucks, it's OK and he won't say a thing.

      This discussion is really not about modesty: it's about sede hypocrisy and double standards.

      Delete
    6. PL,

      You hit the nail on the head. This discussion IS ABOUT hypocrisy and double standards. The double standards being enforced by Big Don (also by Dolan and Checkie).

      The questions is: why can't NCTrad see this? Or maybe won't want to see this? A likely supporter/enabler of Dolan, Checkie and Big Don. Who knows?

      Delete
    7. We'll take NCTrad at his word that he doesn't have a dog in this fight since he's not a sede. After all, on June 7, 10:13, he agreed that the criticisms of the cult masters were legitimate.

      We think NCTrad is a bright, decent guy who, never having experienced the cult masters up close and personal, just cannot imagine their shameless hypocrisy. When he hears them recite sound Catholic teaching, he thinks they're consistent in its application, whereas we survivors of the cult all know that for big donors, "clergy," and favorites there are always exceptions or at least excuses.

      Decent people on the outside have no idea how sick, bizarre, and weird Tradistan is, where the rules are only for some people, and where money always talks the loudest.

      Delete
  14. MHT is having an ordination on the 29th.

    They also have been placing california and Vero beach on their schedule more. Any news why? Are they focusing on other areas for money, since they are pulling the nuns and priest from Arizona as soon as they at least get a permit for occupancy for the new convent? Or will they keep the nuns in Arizona so that they can still collect money for having them there?

    ReplyDelete
  15. PL.

    You might be interested to know there was six high school graduates at St Michael Academy,Spokane.The school there is dying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's great news. May the "parish" (LOL) be next.

      Delete
  16. Did Sanborn say in his latest sermon that it imprudent for anyone to be on facebook? Why does Fr. cekada, Fr. Nkaumke, Fr. ercoli, and others have a facebook account? Why does Fr. Desposito and others have a Twitter? Would this not be imprudent for them or do the rules not apply?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MHT has a Twitter account, Fr. McGuire, Fr. McKenna, etc. Social media must be allowed by some.

      Have you seen youtube? Fr. cekada and company are on that too.

      Darn those imprudent priests! Next, you will see them posting photos of their fancy meals on Instagram!

      Delete
    2. As we and others here have observed, Sanborn's rules don't apply to everyone. The privileged always get an indult. That's why he praised Checkie for his work on Twitter and YouTube but blasted the regular folks. There's always a double standard in Tradistan.

      Delete
  17. Since when have the cult masters been taking their lush vacations? How long have they been going to the Bishop's Lodge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've been going there for many years. The luxury resort and spa has been closed for remodeling and won't re-open until 2017, so that's why you haven't heard anything recently. We'll have to watch carefully to learn where Checkie will recuperate after his surgery later this summer. Santa Fe is full of swanky hotels.

      Delete
  18. I have news for MHT, many of the parishioners are praying and waiting for another traditional Catholic Church to open close by to there. He may have been able to trash the Spring Hill and Tampa chapels, but he has alienated so many people with his outrageous sermons, obvious disdain for the "normal" parishioners, and arrogant and snobbish attitude towards the majority of his parish, that many are looking for change. Whether this be CMRI or SSPV, a big name needs to come in and he will lose at least half the chapel. People are tired of him. They are tired of his pleading for money for his next big project. They are tired of being told every week they are going to hell. They are tired of how he treats elderly, women, children, and the poor. They are tired of the attitude of "this is my seminary, not your church. Give me your money, and I will give you the sacraments. I don't answer to you or anyone else what I will do with that money." He has his kiss ups and want to be part of his trio who will always defend him, but the rest know what he thinks of them. They talk amongst themselves, and this withdraw will be worse than the Michigan retreat. Sanborn's bills are higher, his planned European vacations more, his cemetery, his prestige is gone. His connection with the Sgg scandal and Cekada has caused him damage. There are other bishops out there now. Neville doesn't need him for anything. CMRI doesn't need him, nor do they want to be associated with the SGG or MHT scandals. Only seminarians who don't know about what they are getting into are going there anymore. The majority leave for vacations and don't come back to that place. Yet, he boasts about numbers and the need to expand....for what? His cat to have more room to run? Maybe the expansion is for Cekada and Dolan to move down and retire with their cats too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a pity these people still believe the misrepresentations about the other area chapels. There are independent, Thuc-line priests nearby.

      In our estimation, big changes are coming to the B'ville cult. They won't be from the outside, unfortunately, but may result in a dramatic new arrangement. The Big 3 can't be happy with all the ugly scrutiny he's generated, and it may the time to send him off in another direction so they can lick their wounds.

      We'll have more to say on Saturday.

      Delete
    2. I have been to the chapel in Tampa. To me if felt like a traditional Latin mass but without the proper reverence--more like a novus ordo church in that regard. The altar server was a man in his 50's/60's in dockers and a short sleeve shirt (no tie). Some of the women wore pants (I'm not a pants-hater, but normally you don't see it in traditional chapels) and short dresses. Even the pictures of some of the brides' dresses that are posted on their webpage gave me reason to pause. I only went once so I can't say whether that's the norm.

      Delete
    3. Response to: AnonymousJune 8, 2016 at 3:57 PM – many thanks for the detailed report. As long as Sin-burn has his wealthy backers, and they continue to reproduce, he most likely will have a place to roost with “parishioners,” and practice his corrupt version of Catholicism. More than likely these elements will never leave, especially if one of their own does indeed get made a bishop to perpetrate this religion. I can’t help but wonder if at least some of Sin-burn’s rules, mortal sins, and mandates are forced upon him by the $ people, who themselves could be whack jobs.
      As to him having had prestige, that is a matter of opinion and interpretation. I don’t believe he ever had prestige, except in his own ego inflated warped mind and with encouragement from Dolan and Cekada, lip service paid to him by them. Remember, when Dolan & Cekada were expelled from the SSPV, they were virtually on their own, with no priest colleagues, or at least any who would visit their chapel and publicly associate with them. This is when they went full scale to cozy up to CMRI. When Sin-burn opened his first pest house in Michigan, he asked Cekada to be a “professor,” as he too was desperate for any priest to be associated with him. As long as Sin-burn has $ to burn, he will be alright. One can only hope and pray that the “regular” kind of Catholic people who
      consider being a part
      of his religion see the light and move on.

      Delete
    4. There is some indication that the $ people are getting tired of Sin-burn and his nutty sermons. These folks wanna have fun too. After he last sermon, some of them had to block photos on social media.

      Delete
  19. Pistrina LiturgicaJune 8, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Wrote:
    They've been going there for many years. The luxury resort and spa has been closed for remodeling...

    Could this be for the installation of the Transgender Bathrooms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You never know! That place is very, very hip.

      Delete
    2. I am sure most of us, even the most whacked out traddies, wouldn’t even consider denying a sincere, diligent, hard working priest some rest and relaxation, or a personal vacation, on an annual basis. Much like the laborer, who ideally gets at least one day off a week and gets some paid time each year for vacation. Those priests who are parasites already enjoy plenty of leisure time. But, for a priest or bishop to even remotely go near such a place as the Bishop’s Lodge is at best, wrong, wrong, wrong. In the “old” Code of Canon Law, weren’t such matters covered, such as priests staying at hotels or inns or like places only out of necessity? I vaguely recall a proscription against priests going into taverns, or bars. (Know anything about this Pistrina?)
      One can rest assured this Bishop’s Lodge is a den of immorality and I am quite positive “Mary like” standards of modesty are not to be found there. This is a good place for a priest or bishop to vacation? Check out their website. They even have a chapel somewhere or another as part of their property. One of the pictures shows an altar with what looks like 2 menorahs on it! Some woman is scattering something on the floor, dressed in a sari or some such garment. What ever happened to priests going to a secluded cabin on a lake for their annual vacation?

      Delete
    3. The Bishop's Lodge is known to be gay friendly and frequented by homosexuals. How could anyone give money to a place that not only allows gay weddings, but actually promots and advertises to this?

      And a vacation is one thing, but I would like to know how many of the paishioners get annual vacations to western spas or European vacations? It says in SGG's newsletters that the priests stay extra time to have vacations when they travel. I don't think they need "extra" vacations paid for by parishioners. What ever happened to stay-vacations? When people need a new roof or hvac system, most people give up vacations and pay for necessities instead.

      Delete
    4. The upwardly mobile riff-raff "clergy" of Tradistan are not to be bothered by such old fashioned notions as thrift. (But you must be, lest you slack off your donations.)

      The fact that the Santa Fe property is called "The Bishop's Lodge" is sufficient justification for these sybarites to stay there, no matter how secular or pagan it is. The point is, the cult masters are cool, and you're not.

      Delete
  20. AnonJune 8, 2016 at 12:20 AM
    Wrote:

    Get to know the Ruling Families to avoid their cruelty?

    NO, I I beg to Differ with you.
    You do not have to know who is being cruel to you to solve the problem.

    Don't accept the Cruelty TAKE CONTROL, and don't Support what is wrong. They will get the message loud and clear when their BREADBASKETS ARE NO LONGER FULL. Hit them where it hurts!

    DON'T FEED THE BEAST!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was being sarcastic. I think everyone should demand an outside priest, who can't be bought, be put in charge. Since Sanborn isn't good with people, maybe he should just stay away from all. No one can get in with the trio, plus, why would you want to be friends with them?

      Delete
    2. We think the élite are going to solve their Sanborn problem AND manage to keep their privileged clique closed to outsiders. That way the spankings and all the dealings can be kept en famille.

      Delete
  21. NCTradCatholicJune 8, 2016 at 1:29 AM
    Wrote:

    "The more female flesh that is exposed, the greater the occasion of sin (at least impure thoughts) for men. It's really quite simple"

    I hate to say this but, why not have the women just BURKA UP, lest you men fall into sin?

    While I agree with you that modesty is a necessity, so is self restraint. Men should direct their eyes toward God, and not woman, especially while attending Mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The young lady who helps us with technology (and who's been a traditional Catholic all her life) always wonders why it's the woman's fault here in the United States. In her state in Mexico, it's very hot, so the women don't swaddle themselves, yet the men are not enflamed with passion if a little leg or arm is exposed or toes are visible. She thinks these gringos are in need of professional help if they can't keep their eyes off the gals while at Mass.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, that line was hip back in the 70s--I can wear a bikini or parade up and down the street naked if I want and not be raped: it's my body. You men need to learn to control yourselves. Now 60 million dead babies later (plus the private contraception murders): the men are marrying men and dressing up as women.

      First nude restaurant--waiting list 44,000
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bunyadi-londons-first-naked-restaurant-8139015
      Public Urination:
      http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/40005-2/

      http://time.com/4199747/open-air-urinal-san-francisco/

      http://couplescruise.com/index.php/what-are-couples-cruises~/playrooms

      http://www.dailystar.co.uk/travel-news-cheap-uk-holidays-luxury-breaks-more-daily-star/489440/Love-hotels-fetish-sex-bondage-kink-world

      http://www.racked.com/2015/3/17/8218321/gender-neutral-clothes-unisex

      P.S. Who new savages were just too hip/unisex for clothes (and we thought they were runnin' around naked cause they couldn't sew/make fabric!). Meanwhile the N.O. has been promoting naked women masses (and savagery) since the 70s--why don't you go there (where God isn't) and show off your assets (the fairies won't object)?
      http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A027rcOffertoryGift.htm

      http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A076rcCommunionNudeWoman02.htm

      If anyone really wants to pursue this matter. I repeat, as Deacon Faulk so well explained, that the female breast in New Guinea is not a sex symbol as in the West, but is viewed as purely utilitarian. - Dr. Carroll
      http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=331387&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

      PPS This article would disagree w/your view about where men direct their eyes in Mexico:
      http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2016/04/20/opinion-what-rape-mexico-really-means/

      Delete
    3. Are you quoting sanborn's seminary newsletter?

      No one said that women shouldn't dress modestly, but what was said was men need to take responsibility and guard their eyes.

      Same argument as 1970's? I don't think so. All those babies murdered have two people who need to take responsibility, actually 3, if you want to count the doctor. Yet, it takes two people to make a baby. I doubt it was because how a woman was not dressed, but more of an attitude of how men objectify women for sex.

      And, in case you haven't heard, rape is rape PERIOD. Rape is about control. It isn't based on what a woman wears. What kind of sicko are you to justify any form of it?

      Men have to guard their eyes. Women have to dress modestly. In no way should rape be excused

      Delete
    4. Well, from our reading, the sedes apparently believe it's all the fault of the women. The bro's, we must assume from the sermon, are just innocent victims of all this feminine allure. They'd be thinking of algebra except for the distraction of all these tight skirts, clicking high heels, exposed toes, and seductively swaying hips. And, as Checkie has famously said, "boys will be boys."

      Delete
    5. The sedes believe it is all the fault of the women? Who are you a ringer for: Fairy Cupich?The Western men (and women) can surely make women dress modestly so they don't have to fight Muslims--and put them in separate cars also.

      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/26/german-railway-launches-gender-segregated-carriages-in-wake-of-sex-attacks/

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/german-mayor-tells-town-hall/

      It is St. Peter & St. Paul that tell CHRISTIAN women to dress modestly!
      Men have their sins which they will be judged upon. But women have their sins also--and one is constantly trying to use their sex appeal to control men and gain power and attention. Also they are vain. What is the purpose of 'high' heels? Do they aid walking? Bottom line: are people here interested in getting to heaven--and leading their children there? Are they going to the holy sacrifice of the mass to be with the BVM at the foot of the cross upon which their savior hangs crucified for their sins? Are they going to unite themselves with their savior Jesus Christ to worship God? Leading people into sin could send you to hell--but sure you will play Adam & Eve and try to blame each other when you face judgment. What idiots!

      Delete
    6. Truly the fall of the family plays a role in all of these things. I think the downfall is when men let pride and such lead them to leaving their wife and children. They become all hotty-totty and start quoting people that they only looked up to match their current post. They use sins of the tongue to trash women in order to pull themselves up and cover their own multitude of sins. They "think" they are holier than others and judge other's sins, as though they are worse than their own. They go to Church every Sunday, with missal in hand, but then they talk about others' struggles and need to repent as if they were pure as snow.

      There is this man that goes to church who trashes his wife, left his wife and kids, yet claims to be all knowing and all holy. He goes around and gossips about everyone, while at the same time sending quotes and repeating them like he's a priest, but he needs to take the thorn out of his own eye. This poster reminds me of this person.

      We all sin, but in different ways, yet this person thinks he is so different.

      Delete
    7. Response to: Anonymous June 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM – right on! You said it quite succinctly. Men (women too) share a responsibility for where their eyes roam, most especially during Mass. Maybe their focus should be more on Christ in the tabernacle, the crucifix, one of the so many statues found in most traddie houses of worship rather than gawking, leering, and geeking at women and judging their modesty and declaring them to be sinful. God created the human body, and it is beautiful. These people don’t seem to realize this and apparently think all of the outer “appendages” of the human body serve more than the purpose of their personal titillation. I pity their spouses and children.
      I hope and pray I never find myself ever again in one of these independent churches. At the one I had the misfortune to attend, I don’t know how many visitors, women, were turned away due to their outfits. However questionable or immodest, this was their first time and many don’t have the slightest notion of appropriate dress for church, or for that matter, the office or other work places. It is not necessarily intentional. They came as seekers, not as objects of lust and scorn for these men (and women) who can’t control their eyes and dirty minds. Maybe the usher should have seated them in the back row, or some other discrete place. If they do come back, they will realize there is a dress code and comply. There were a few women at my former chapel of torture who actually knew how to dress. They had their hair “done” once a week, applied some make – up, and actually spent time shopping for attractive yet modest outfits. They followed the letter of the dress code law and were still criticized, I assume because they were attractive women and even if they wore full burka or a head to toe gunny sack, and smeared their faces with ash, would still be beautiful. There is no beauty allowed in these cults.

      Delete
    8. "However questionable or immodest, this was their first time" - if one goes to McDonalds (or any other restaurant) and it says "shirt and shoes required" on the door, people are NOT let in because it is their "first time" and "they don't know better." If one goes to a restaurant (including British cruise lines) where a dinner jacket is required -- there's no seating because it's your first time.

      You seem to worry more about your feelings and other people's feelings than God's feelings. This is what God said to Moses: Take off your shoes, you're standing on holy ground.

      God made the human body--so of course it is beautiful, but this is what God said to His priests: "Thou shalt make also linen breeches, to cover the flesh of their nakedness from the reins to the thighs: And Aaron and his sons shall use them when they shall go in to the tabernacle of the testimony, or when they approach the altar to minister in the sanctuary, lest being guilty of iniquity they die." Exodus 28:42 God also specifies all the other garments as well.
      http://biblehub.com/drb/exodus/28.htm

      I am a woman and I know so many women (especially in my own family and friends) who are so hyper on this subject: they don't want to cover their head, or wear dresses, or sleeves, etc. but if they had a new boyfriend who liked pink, every article of clothing they would buy would be pink to please him and yet they don't care about pleasing God. Yet God loves them more than anyone and only makes laws to lead sinners in the way to heaven.

      It would be easy to say nothing. But considering the state of the country and the women bullies who have abortion legalized and the blood of 60 million babies on our hands, I speak out because it is the right thing to do. Not only should one dress modestly on Sunday for Mass, but all the time. That our culture should produce such young women is not beautiful but a terrible shame:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=miley+cyrus&biw=1536&bih=746&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjd8ZKTxZvNAhUKbz4KHTLVCtwQ_AUIBygC

      https://www.google.com/search?q=miley+cyrus&biw=1536&bih=746&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjd8ZKTxZvNAhUKbz4KHTLVCtwQ_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=lady+gaga

      P.S. Our culture thinks gray hair and wrinkles are 'ugly,' but God made that too so maybe y'all should refine your idea of 'beautiful.' Are you saying the BVM was ugly because she dressed modestly? Are nuns ugly?

      Delete
    9. I'm a woman. But I believe the rebellion of women in our culture (which unfortunately includes Trad Catholic Women) is a mirror of the rebellion of the VC2 Church (all throughout Old Testament Israel presented as a harlot when in rebellion/ adulterous wife; also Eph 5:32). I pray for both men and women in these times, but men do have leadership role given to them by God so "self control" isn't sufficient for them to get to heaven if their wives and children are rebelling against God. Sin was imputed to Adam not Eve. Of course, the man must lay down his life for his wife in imitation of Christ (Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it Eph 5:25).

      http://www.drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm

      Women need to do what the Holy Bible states and any woman who considers herself a follower of Christ should be defending the Word of God and not making excuses for sin.

      Delete
    10. I wonder how many women (and men) who attend a traditional chapel for the first time are so turned off by the reception (none) and looks they receive that they never return again. Shouldn't we be reaching out to those people to make them feel welcome, teach them about our faith, and help them to understand the proper way to dress while at Mass instead of leaving them with a bad impression?

      I wonder also how many teens, who may be questioning their faith, are so put off by all the crazy sermons of Sanborn and others and the impossibly strict rules, juat lose the faith completely. Certainly it's better to have a denim clad, flip flop wearing, ears pierced young man or woman in church rather than not there at all.

      Delete
    11. When Mary Magdalene came to wash Our Lord's feet, did he turn her away?

      How many people did he turn away?

      Delete
    12. "However questionable or immodest, this was their first time" - if one goes to McDonalds (or any other restaurant) and it says "shirt and shoes required" on the door, people are NOT let in because it is their "first time" and "they don't know better." If one goes to a restaurant (including British cruise lines) where a dinner jacket is required -- there's no seating because it's your first time.

      This is totally spot on.

      Delete
    13. gawking, leering, and geeking at women and judging their modesty and declaring them to be sinful. God created the human body, and it is beautiful. These people don’t seem to realize this and apparently think all of the outer “appendages” of the human body serve more than the purpose of their personal titillation.

      Hey, JP2 would smile and give you a high five for this! Theology of the Body!

      Delete
  22. AnonymousJune 8, 2016 at 10:28 PM
    Wrote:
    ..."And, in case you haven't heard, rape is rape PERIOD. Rape is about control. It isn't based on what a woman wears. What kind of sicko are you to justify any form of it?"...

    Bravo!

    The problem today is simple. Society has fallen prey to the devil, because the Church fell prey to Vatican II.
    Men have become weaker, since Vatican II, and will only grow weaker IF they do not learn to control their desires.

    Pray more, criticize less!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's painting one's hair and face and wearing high heels and tight skirts about? Competing w/the crucifix or the holy sacrifice of the mass-or God--that makes one an idol! Surely one of the duties of men, which so many men have forsaken, is to govern their households--including their wives and daughters, and in some cases their sisters and mothers. It is not just controlling themselves: it is their families as well!

      It is a spectacle that the husband of the Democratic Party nominee for President (and a former President himself) is an accused rapist several times over, committed adultery w/an intern half his age and is a known womanizer. The nominee of the Republican Party paints his hair (as did that great hero 'movie star' Ron Reagan responsible for 1st Abortion law in CA; great friend of sodomites & divorced & remarried) and has been married three times (also public adulterer)--nude pics of his 'raunchy' wife are available on line--and now one of his daughters is getting into the act also. Yet hear the mantra of these two 'leaders': equality for women!

      Surely there is more rape today than ever in the history of the western world since Christian principles are no longer followed.


      http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers

      Men must control themselves, but also those under their roofs. "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." Josh 24:2

      "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." 1 Peter 3:15

      Delete
    2. Take the thorn out of your eye! You left your own wife, with 3 of your kids because why? Sanborn told you they were going to hell because they couldn't stand your extremism anymore? Everyone at church knows the story because you so gladly told EVERYONE and gladly made it all into your wife's fault. Repent! Go back to your wife and kids and keep your marriage vows. Stop hiding behind sanborn and your quotes.

      Delete
  23. Just reading your interesting website.As regards CMRI.In the June newsletter of Pivarunas,there are two observances

    *Standing in the background of the front page picture is that devious Gilchrist from Down Under.He has a bad track record and one of his tactics used in the past to cover his bizarre behaviour is tell people to have nothing to do with his former followers as they are trouble makers(they will expose his lack of training and care for people among other problems).The SSPX priests in Australia know much about him and he is still in good standing with Pivarunas.This just details how rotten CMRI is.The good thing is the SSPX took over the care of most of his former New Zealand supporters.

    *No appearance of Father Michael Oswalt.In fact,he has not been at any ordinations at Omaha for a while.Lets hope and pray he is having doubts about CMRI.

    Keep up the good expose of sedeland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is my hope that the good and decent Fr Michael Oswalt will:-

      (1) see through the CMRI for what it is: a cult;

      (2) face this fact squarely, and not turn his eyes aside;

      (3) and then do the only logical thing that any decent person will do: leave this cult.

      Fr Oswalt is too good for CMRI. Pivarunas and CMRI do not deserve to have Fr Oswalt in their midst. I earnestly hope that Fr Oswalt will shake them off, like the dust off his sandals.

      Delete
    2. One of our sources tells us that Gilchrist is back in Australia, believe it or not. How he can show his face there is anybody's guess!

      This entire episode is one the strongest arguments we've heard for shutting down these dreadful "bishop-led" cults. There's no accountability whatsoever.

      If Fr. Oswalt would leave the cult, he'd be able to land a very good position as an independent priest. The first place he should apply is Our Lady of the Sun in AZ. He'd help himself and he'd help the poor folks out there get away from Sanborn.

      Delete
    3. Reader,what is wrong with the few remaining followers of Gilchrist in Australia.Can they not believe what this low life scumbag has been doing.Lets pray they wake up.Pivarunas had some idea several years ago about starting a "seminary" Down Under.This would be a disaster.

      Delete
    4. Another CMRI priest that is very good but has been very quiet the past few years is Fr. Gabriel Lavery. Does anyone know what is up with him?

      As for Fr. Oswalt, "haste makes waste." He made and acted upon a decision for such an important move way too fast. I wonder if his heart sank once he got to Spokane.

      I noticed he really got tight after he was ordained, which is to say he became really "rigid" in manner.

      Anon444

      Delete
    5. We believe Fr Oswalt saw a number of bad problems at the Mount.He told several in private that the evil one was there.Need we say anymore.Good people should email him and ask why is he still working with CMRI.

      Delete
    6. Anon June 12, 2016 5:25 AM, you wrote that Fr. Oswalt told several in private that "the evil one was there [at the Mount presumably - correct me if I am wrong]."

      Did he go into detail what he meant by that? I ask because I have always sensed something there as well but thought it was just me.

      Anon444

      Delete
  24. AnonymousJune 9, 2016 at 3:50 AM
    Wrote:
    ..."Standing in the background of the front page picture is that devious Gilchrist from Down Under"...

    Gilchrist's name has surfaced many times, and no time was it in a good light. Could you please enlighten me why Bp. Pivarunas supports him and his antics? Or could it be that age old saying being fulfilled again? Birds of a feather flock together!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Birds of a feather flock together.When a priest does grave harm and his bishop does nothing,what does that tell you.This is typical of sedeland cults.

    We were told by several SSPX priests that Gilchrist is known among the society for his behavior and have said he would of either been expelled or put in a monastery so he would not cause any harm to Souls.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Does anyone have any knowledge about the group in Melbourne,Australia where Father Kevin Vaillancourt(ex CMRI)would visit.It was in the CMRI Mass directory about three to four years ago but is no longer.It numbered about sixty to eighty faithful.Fiji has also been removed.How can Bishop Pivarunas allow one of his clerics to do this.Yes,bizarre and diabolical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We would say Gilchrist lost them.Piv will not admit Gilchrist is doing any wrong.Birds of a feather flock together.You have to understand how cults work.Best advice,get out.

      Delete
    2. Yes,we agree with your sound advice.Get out and don't look
      back.

      Delete
  27. Resonse to: Anonymous June 9, 2016 at 3:59 PM – you write, “Surely there is more rape today than ever in the history of the western world since Christian principles are no longer followed.”
    That there is more rape today than ever in the history of the Western World is quite debatable. The truth is, in more recent times, women are reporting rape to the authorities more often than they dared to in the past because they are treated better than in the past for such a report, and are not presumed guilty of provoking the attack. In the past, a Western World woman raped daring to report it would be subject to immense humiliation, degradation, and accusation, and it was generally presumed “she” provoked the attack in the first place. Even in some cultures today, rape victims are shunned and shamed for being raped, and considered damaged goods that no man wants to marry, or if married at the time of the rape, no longer fit to be a spouse. In the “traditional” past, rape victims more than likely didn’t report these attacks, praying and hoping the attack wouldn’t result in pregnancy.
    Rape is a heinous crime of attack and control, of sadism, not provoked by lust and passion but committed by a man who is mentally ill. Throughout Christian history, during war, invasion, and occupation, as an example, even cloistered nuns in full habit were raped by invading enemy soldiers. What did they do to deserve this? At the conclusion of World War II, invading Russian soldiers raped, en masse, German women and girls, even the elderly ladies. In Berlin, at this time, with no running water and soap, with few clothes, and filthy at that, these unwashed, sometimes lice ridden women were raped. What did they do to deserve this? Certainly they weren’t dressed immodestly replete with painted faces and high heels, standing on street corners or in bars, asking and just waiting to be attacked. Statistics of the incidence of rape occurring in the past are not available. Why would any man attack a woman in such a way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think the Soviet Army wasn't lice ridden and un-bathed after how many months in the field? How many weeks/months do you think the men had been w/out the comforts of wife? And yet what you say is true that Soviet commanders purposely ordered their soldiers to rape civilians as a punishment/revenge for the German invasion of Russia. Rape and pillage was standard procedure for armies in ancient world. The Russian Army in WW2 was commanded by Godless communists. The armies run by Christians weren't allowed to participate in the Communist rampage--though I'm not saying no western soldier committed a rape during WW2.
      If rape is such a heinous crime, how come it’s no bar to the presidency?
      Has any presidential candidate ever spoken to or about women the way Trump does--including public use of f-word in regard to his own daughter?
      http://winningdemocrats.com/that-one-time-trump-tried-to-rape-a-woman-in-his-daughters-bedroom/
      And these are the rape allegations against Bill Clinton whose wife is now the Democratic nominee:
      http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm

      Our Lady’s University: “and about the resident assistant's own experience of having the campus disciplinary board find the young man she had accused "not responsible" of ANALLY raping her on a date…Not long before, she and a bunch of friends got to talking and realized that "of the eight of us, six had been sexually violated and we're all good friends and none of us knew that about each other -- and the other two had had bad experiences, too. How could we not know that about each other?" When I ventured that if women aren't talking to each other about such things, they might be even less likely to have those conversations on a date, Shea stopped me: A date? She hadn't had one of those in four years.” [GET THAT—Not ONE date in FOUR years (but find out how many men she had sexual intercourse w/and how many times she’d been drunk--and yet all you women are talking about how “beautiful” you are dressing: drunken hook up sex– this is what you’ve passed on to your daughters: not ONE date. Meanwhile what does this Seeberg do who later kills herself--give a man a lap dance the first time one meets? And then cry rape?]
      http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers

      "Somewhere between the frat house and the dorm room, college campuses became the real life incarnation of a “Law and Order: SVU” episode. The numbers are baffling: one in every five young women will be sexually assaulted in college; 60 percent won’t report the crime;"
      https://makeitbetter.net/family/the-rape-culture-on-college-campuses/

      Sometimes women don't report 'a crime,' because the circumstances are questionable (read over and over in case of Seeberg where she considers herself a 'good girl,' and yet see what she does on a first meeting w/a man) whereas in the Berlin/Soviet Army rape no question in anyone's mind that women were not consorting w/these men but hiding from them. It is very easy to say that rape is an attack of control and sadism committed by madmen and that a woman is totally innocent, but I know that women who are afraid of being robbed, don't go into high crime areas and girls afraid of being raped aren't drinking in immodest clothes at the local bar.

      Erin Cavalier downed a couple of glasses of wine and a­ few shots of tequila, grabbed a water bottle filled with vodka and Sprite, and headed out from her dormitory to celebrate the end of her first semester at the Catholic University of America.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/catholic-u-student-recounts-her-struggles-after-reporting-a-sex-assault/2014/06/29/9ed3b4f0-e694-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

      Delete
  28. For anyone of the above posters today justifying rape, you are sick. If clothing had anything to do with rape, there would be very low cases of rape in muslim countries where women dress fully covered, even their faces. The statistics of rape would be higher at beaches or somewhere like a pool, where little clothing is worn. Young children, including babies and toddlers are raped, and this is because of clothing? No, it isn't, obviously, and you must have very little education to think otherwise. A burka, a habit, or any other covering would not protect you from rape from someone with a sick mind wanting to exhibit control and power. Actually, if you read about what rapists seek are easy targets (some site clothing such as skirts and dresses that can easily be pulled up, but it is still not the clothing that causes the rape.)

    What makes it more sick is that the poster claims to be a woman, justifying this behavior. I think they have been listening to Sanborn way too long! This is his kind of thinking and sermons: blame the woman for everything, even rape.

    You are seeing more rape cases REPORTED today, but that doesn't mean there is more rape than in the past. Women are not as stigmatized, as in the past. Women now realize it isn't their fault, nor has it ever been.

    We will continue to have faulty attitudes of "boys will be boys" by people like Cekada, which will make ignorant people blame women and perpetuate a false idea of who is to blame. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled a feminist because why? They don't think women ask to be raped?

    I truly feel sorry for you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A psychologist recently told us that extreme,disordered, puritanical fanaticism, the kind we see in the cult, may also be a source of violence against women. According to her, hyper-puritanism often encourages a hatred for women in general that sometimes expresses itself in the unspeakable act of rape, for it demonizes the female sex, while portraying loutish males as innocent victims of diabolical feminine wiles. By so doing, it not only excuses these sickos but it also turns them into spiritual heroes.

      She cautions everyone to listen carefully for notes of rage, contempt, and anger in the voice of hell-fire preachers of any religion: if you detect it, you know there's much more going on than a call to virtue. Women, the good doctor urges, should get out of such an environment immediately.

      Delete
    2. Rage, contempt, anger......Sounds like Sanborn!

      Delete
    3. So "The Readers" here approve of and subscribe to Freudian principles.

      We're getting a better picture here of what kind of people "The Readers" are.

      Delete
    4. Anon June 10 5:37 AM needs to know that not all psychology today is Freudian. In fact, Freud is rather passé, according to our sources. The professional we quoted follows a different school of thought.

      Anon June 10 5:37 needs a refresher course.

      Delete
    5. Hey, Reader

      I must disagree (and very politely, too!) with you here.

      Anon June 10 5:37 does NOT need a refresher course. He/she might just be desperately defending the cult; grasping at straws like "psychology is Freudian!".

      What Anon June 10 5:37 really needs is to face the light and love the truth: for only the TRUTH will set this Anon free from being enslaved (financially and also intellectually) to the cult.

      Delete
  29. 'Why would any man attack a woman in such a way?' In doing the Office for the Dead, I happened to notice that "Ne quando rapiat ut leo animam meam,"/"Lest at any time, like a lion, he seize upon my soul" -that the Latin word for 'seize' is 'rapiat'/rape, but also that 'rapture' the prots are always going on about is also from the same root word.

    https://www.google.com/#q=rapture+word+origin

    Many people when they read the New Testament about the foolish virgins waiting for the Bridegroom to return for the wedding feast are not familiar w/Jewish wedding ceremony & custom of Bridegroom stealing the Bride (not sure if this is what prots mean by the rapture since the Church is the Bride of Christ), but you might be interested in reading nevertheless:

    “The groomsmen would run ahead of the groom, sound the Shofar (trumpet), and shout that he was coming. While the father’s head was turned, the groom would steal the bride. The wedding party then went back to the groom’s house to meet the guests.”

    http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/content/ancient-jewish-wedding-missing-link-christianity

    ReplyDelete
  30. You, Anon 10:14, are sick.

    I don't care if a woman is drunk, dressed in a bikini, and dancing on a table, no one deserves to be raped.

    While you talk about feminist culture, you fail to see the damage that someone like you continues to do to the female race. There is never, ever an excuse for rape.

    I know quite a few people where Sanborn has had their influence, blaming single mothers, divorced mothers, single women for something that they did years ago or for something that was done to them. These women began to hate themselves and other women for a past sin. God forgave St. Mary Magdalene, Treated women with respect, and when they were getting ready to stone a woman for adultery (what did he do? That's right, he started writing the mens' names in the dirt??) Seems to me that the sermons given by his representatives on earth would also place blame on not solely delve woman.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't care if you abort babies, sodomize children, and perform satanic rituals, no-one deserves to go to hell! Seems you all are purposely missing the point or else God has made you deaf, dumb and blind due to your sins.

    Hopefully you'll do your children better than these Catholic parents.

    During earlier testimony, police officers who responded to what they thought was an alcohol overdose found Love's bruised and bloodied body, and quickly realized her apartment was a crime scene.
    Patrolman K.W. Chapman said he arrived at the apartment and found a hole in her bedroom door and her body lying on the floor next to her bed. She was wearing only underwear.
    He kneeled down to check whether she was breathing and detected nothing. He then unsuccessfully tried CPR. He said Love's face was bloodied, bruised and had scrapes.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/09/romantic-rival-says-ex-lacrosse-players-arm-was-around-loves-neck-months-before.html

    In the documents, police write that "George Huguely admitted that on May 3, 2010, he was involved in an altercation with Yeardley Love and that during the course of the altercation he shook Love and her head repeatedly hit the wall."
    "Huguely admitted that he kicked his right foot through the door that leads to Love's bedroom."
    Indeed, in the aftermath of Yeardley's death, police recorded that the door to her room had been forced open and "had a hole in it that appeared to have been made by a fist."
    Huguely revealed glimpses of the tragedy that took place that night, telling police, "at one point during the altercation he saw blood coming from Yeardley Love's nose... After the altercation he pushed Yeardley onto her bed and left."
    Though Love was found by emergency responders in nothing but her underwear, Huguely maintains that she was wearing a T-shirt when he arrived at her room and that "he thought Yeardley still had the T-shirt on when he left the residence."
    Crime scene photos show a black shirt lying on the floor near where Love's body was found, which "appears to have been dropped on the floor."
    However forensic detectives had not been told that Love was wearing a shirt during the altercation with Huguely, and did not know to look for or collect the item at the scene. When investigators returned to the apartment with a warrant to look for a shirt, they did not find one.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/court-documents-reveal-new-details-yeardley-love-murder-questions-swirl-george-huguely-article-1.465515

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mass-for-murder-victim-yeardley-love-held-at-university-of-virginia/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't care if you abort babies, sodomize children, and perform satanic rituals, no-one deserves to go to hell! Seems you all are purposely missing the point or else God has made you deaf, dumb and blind due to your sins. "

      Are you on medication, Anon 11:28?

      Delete
    2. Read any comment I posted, and find where it states, "women deserve to be raped." Unfortunately, a drunk woman in a bikini dancing on a table might fall off into the lap of a drunk man in a speedo on spring break in Florida and like a gorilla in his own drunkenness he might drag her off down the beach when there's no one around to rescue her.

      When a person gets killed climbing Mount Everest, one doesn't say the person deserved it, but one recognizes it as a distinct risk the person knowingly took.

      Delete
  32. Now there's a female race? Is that why we no longer get separate toilets and we have to sign up for the draft and kids are being taught gender is a social construct?

    http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/washington-state-to-begin-teaching-gender-as-a-social-construct-in-kindergarten-with-many-ways-to-express-gender-62734/

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/09/washington-state-schools-tout-k-12-gender-fluid-education-standards/

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Seminary_Newsletter_Feb_2016.pdf

    http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/July_2015_Newsletter.pdf

    The future bishop is missing in all these retreats. The question must be asked: why does he never attend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And here, as well: http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20February%202013%20w.pdf

      Delete
    2. A very shrewd question. You're not the only one who has noticed what must be the bishop-elect's calculated absence.

      We believe the presence of "One-Hand" Dan has something to do with it. Being photographed along side the Dirtbag could be hurtful in the future. It's prudent to steer clear of any association with that scum bucket.

      Delete
  34. I might be wrong, but this likes a woman is wearing pants at the seminary?

    http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20May%202008.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly looks like pants and at the seminary?

      Looking at the photos, does anyone notice how obese these men are becoming? If you notice, the bishops seem to have packed on quite a bit of weight over the years. For someone who did preached about lust and gluttony, I think someone needs to practice a little fasting.

      Delete
    2. Sure does look like pants. But, then, she's really connected down there, so it's got to be OK.

      Not only is Dannie packing on the pounds — those jowl gets chunkier by the month — get a load of Uneven Steven, his young protégé. That guy was born in 1985, so he can't say all that blubber he hauls around is due to aging. He might be mistaking "fasting" for "fast food."

      Delete
    3. Look how obese Pivarunas has become unlike his skin and bone clerics(e.g Fr Casimir)

      Delete
    4. I see the pants, and it is obvious seminary property. Not only that, but it's put in the SEMINARY newsletter? So, sanborn and dolan both promote women wearing pants on church property?

      It's obvious Sanborn's sermons are for show. If he thinks it's ok for women to wear pants, what else hypocrisy is he preaching?

      Going back to new bishop to be, does he teach the same hypocrisy? I hope you explain what he is like because other than hearing he is a daddy's boy and not a very observant superior for the spoiled nuns, not much is known.

      Delete
    5. The bishop-elect keeps a low profile, so he must really be angry at Big Don for putting him in the spotlight. Maybe some people from FL can shed some light on his practice. Our guess is that he can't be much different from the Donster with the variable enforcement of rules.

      Delete
    6. The bishop elect keeps to himself because his personality is similar to Sanborn''s. He's all about money, exceptions are made when you have the right amount. He's actually more focused on money than Sanborn, if you can believe that. His family gets enough exceptions for the entire parish, but he grew up with the other big names and is now in charge of their children through the convent and school, instructing and insisting to the kids that their vocations are to be religious. If he has his way, all the girls in the school will go into the convent and the boys be told they are to be priests or work for the main families. That way, he can still have the control he seeks. Samborn and jr sanborn are all about control. They can't control their immediate family (in fact, both are out of control), so they seek to control others through intimidation, tight rules, and fear of hell.

      One thing you will notice that both do is lie.

      Delete
    7. The lady in the May 2008 newsletter, cutting baseboard molding, is wearing a skirt, not pants. If you enlarge the view to 400%, you can tell.

      Delete
    8. Definitely not a skirt, IMO. It looks like culllotes, which are pants with wider legs to make them loose.

      Delete
    9. If it were a skirt, the tuck wouldn't go up as high as that. It is definitely cullotes, aka wide legs pants.

      Delete
    10. We have on good authority that the woman in the photo is indeed wearing khaki culottes.

      Delete
    11. Response to: The Reader June 11, 2016 at 12:08 AM – you write,

      “We have on good authority that the woman in the photo is indeed wearing khaki culottes.” Hey Reader, are you sure one of Sin-burn’s many enemies didn’t alter this picture by putting the face of this woman on another body wearing culottes to sabotage his newsletter and credibility?
      I wouldn’t put it past them. LOL

      Delete
    12. Oh, yes, Sin-Burn is besieged by legions devious demons, but we'll have to confess that even our young tech guru couldn't have hacked the MHT account to Photo Shop the pdf image.

      Likewise, we didn't alter all those Facebook images either. They're all the real thing: bars, tight blouses, exposed arms, legs, knees, and shorts.

      But, hey, you might have come up with an excuse he can use. We'll have to listen to this Sunday's sermon. (His social-media addicted followers certainly could use it.)

      Delete
  35. " Let he without sin pick up the first stone."

    I notice clearly that our Lord did not single out any gender when He addressed the crowd and yet, it appeared that the ones most eager to cast those stones were the men.

    This is not a statement made against men, rather it is a statement addressed to mankind.

    Judge not lest ye be judged!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All this blog does is throw rocks at certain men. Are you all w/out sin? Why don't you take your own advice? Every year or 2 priest gives a sermon on modesty--and every year women whine: I'm being criticized; I'm being condemned. Maybe like the women who don't know any better than to dress immodestly, the priests don't know any better than to preach a sermon on modesty the way they do. Why are you all so ready to pounce on the men and assume the worst?

      Delete
    2. It isn't about a sermon on modesty. It's about the hypocrisy of the person giving sermons and how exceptions are given to his chosen ones.

      Delete
    3. Anon June 10 at 10:33 is being disingenuous. Thinks that PL/Reader and us here are fools not to notice his/her underhanded methods.

      Anon at 10:41 is right on target. Here, we are against hypocrisy and double standards and selectivity of the cults.

      Anon at 10:33 pretends not to see this, refuses to see this and tries to pull off a despicable diversionary tactic. Very dishonest.

      You know the saying: "like father, like son"; so just like the cult, Anon 10:33 has learnt to uphold and defend lies, hypocrisy and double standards.

      Delete
  36. AnonymousJune 9, 2016 at 11:36 PM
    Wrote:

    "I don't care if you abort babies, sodomize children, and perform satanic rituals, no-one deserves to go to hell!...

    I can assure you that nobody is in hell that did not deserve it, lest Our Lord God be an unjust judge. That is why we should leave the judging to God and not man, and pray for the salvation of souls.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Response to: Anonymous June 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM – you write, “You seem to worry more about your feelings and other people's feelings than God's feelings.” Why yes, I am concerned, but not worried, about other people’s feelings, in particular the seekers, in this case women, who come to these chapels for the first time and are treated in such a nasty manner. The rudeness and rejection, and sometimes ejection from these chapels that they experience most likely results in them never returning. They have souls too. Many dress the way they do out of sheer ignorance. Believe it or not, there are women who don’t even own a dress or skirt. And, some don’t even realize their manner of attire could be a cause of temptation to some. God knows what is in their hearts and what their intentions are. He doesn’t need your help. As I said in my original post, couldn’t they be seated in a discrete place, or in the back row? Couldn’t people who leer and gawk and lose saliva tisking these women learn to control their eyes and minds? I’m not saying this should be tolerated on a regular basis for the same “repeat offender” seekers. I am saying for the first time leave them alone unless they are dressed outrageously. Put them in the back or create a visitors gallery or something for them, without statues if you think the statues will be offended. As difficult as it is to find a kind, diplomatic trad woman in these chapels, perhaps one who remotely fits this description could be found who could gently talk to these seekers and discuss the dress code with them for future visits. Many people
    I know are shocked to learn these trad chapels even have a dress code and their minds are immediately cemented with refusal to attend one. Most people wouldn’t have the presence of mind to call a chapel ahead of time to inquire. I tend to think God’s “feelings” would be more hurt if a hard liner such as yourself intentionally appeared in her respective chapel attired inappropriately as opposed to those who don’t know any better. I’ve no idea specifically what the Blessed Mother wore but I am quite positive she didn’t wear a florescent blue frock with stars embroidered on it. And yes, depending on one’s idea of beauty, some nuns habits were ugly. So what? Let’s give these seekers a chance rather than throw them out immediately because they don’t conform.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What I'm wondering is if God would send them away? From His acts while on earth, I would think not. Yet, these men don't act as though they are His representatives. They really act more like Puritans and turn so many off who may be truly seeking the faith.

    I'm also wondering what we are talking about here? Are we discussing being turned away for wearing the wrong shoes (sandals?), are we taking about denim, sleeveless, no tie, no jacket, too short of skirt, too tight a blouse, etc. Who is being turned away here?

    Do the Churches have a shawl that they can hand women with sleeveless dresses? Could there be a pew reserved in the back for newcomers? Are the guidelines listed BEFORE coming into the church? Is there always an usher who greets newcomers? What steps are the churches taking to help guide these people in the right way or do they just expect everyone to know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no consistency across Traddielandia, and the rules are enforced differentially by the clergy. Moreover, there's a healthy dose of lay hypocrisy, too.

      Here's an incident that we've heard has been repeated throughout Tradistan. In one chapel we attended, a woman was outspoken about standards of attire, insisting to all newcomers that they must wear ankle-length skirts, sensible shoes, and cover their arms. Imagine our surprise one day when we ran into her in the grocery story: she was wearing a tank-top, tight short-shorts, and dress flip flops. Strangely enough, she greeted us smiling and laughing and wasn't the least bit disturbed that we had discovered her deception.

      Delete
    2. At MHT.....nothing posted outside the church about dress code, no usher to greet you, no shawl that I'm aware of. In fact, there aren't even extra chapel veils for women who may not know that you're supposed to wear one.

      Delete
    3. I'll tell one story about what happened at a traditional catholic wedding. The bridesmaid's dresses were approved by the priest before the wedding. On the day of the wedding the mother in law was freaking out because in her opinion one girl's dress was "too tight". She was still covered modestly. MIL was ready to wrap the poor girl in a curtain or tell her she couldn't even come in the church much less be in the wedding party and told the priest. He told MIL that it was not the time or place to make a scene about something that really wasn't an issue. This girl wasn't a traditional catholic so imagine the impression she would have been left with had this priest done what the MIL wished.

      Delete
    4. What a rare find: a traditional Catholic priest with common sense! You can bet the farm that he doesn't belong to the Dolan-Sanborn cult.

      Delete
    5. I read somewhere that in the Vatican, at least for St. Peter’s Basilica, opaque one-size-fits-all raincoats were available, to put on before entering the Basilica, for women to wear who were immodestly dressed
      I understood this was the practice through the 1960’s. Anyone able to verify this? I’ve no idea if there were ushers, nuns, or guards or kapos at the entrance distributing these raincoats. As I said before, some people just don’t know how to dress for various venues or occasions, let alone for their first visit to a trad chapel.
      Many years ago, an American five star restaurant that required men to wear ties finally gave up and abandoned that requirement, as too many men were appearing there tie less and clueless; many men don’t even own a suit, yet some of them have the $ to dine at such restaurants.
      One summer Sunday morning, during a heat wave, with the temperature already in the 90’s, and ever so humid, an infant baby girl, in her carrier at a trad chapel, was wearing only a diaper and sleeveless shirt. A trad woman was heard declaring this outfit to be immodest! One can either laugh and write her off as a whack job, or cry that someone could make such a ludicrous judgment about a precious infant baby. Let’s try to be kind and charitable, and control our eyes and go to church for the reason we are supposed to go there for.

      Delete
    6. I lived during that era, and most people that went to the local Churches were Catholics attending Mass. For the most part there was a respected Dress Code and it was observed.
      St. Peter's Basilica was a different story as they are all about Tourists. So the attire of a visiting non Catholic would have to observe the Dress Code of the time. This did not become a big problem until after 1968, when everything went down the tubes, and the Mass was reduced to just a social event.

      Now it is all about come as you are!

      Delete
  39. AnonymousJune 10, 2016 at 4:03 PM

    Wrote:

    "The bishop elect keeps to himself because his personality is similar to Sanborn's. He's all about money, exceptions are made when you have the right amount. He's actually more focused on money than Sanborn, if you can believe that."...

    I BELIEVE IT. The STAFF OF THIS BLOG believes it.
    That is why they are trying to enlighten Men of Good Will against the "Wild and wicked snares of the devil", especially when they come in Corrupted Collars and Miters.

    We ALL know that money begets money, and the so called "BISHOP ELECT" Selway," is no exception to that greedy rule. That's how they stay in business, and bought into The "Bishop" Business for their Son.

    These men are all about GREED, POWER, and MONEY. Hardly the Virtues of Christ, more like the Vices of an anti-Christ.

    STARVE THE BEAST, lest your soul be devoured by the very creatures you are feeding.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Not sure if someone noticed it before, but if you read the April newasletter of Sanborn

    http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Seminary_Newsletter_April_2016.pdf

    You wil notice on page 2 that the tower was made wrong the first time... it seems Dolan and Cekada are not alone in their waste of money!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20February%202008%20w.pdf

      In this newsletter, they are removing pavers installed incorrectly

      Delete
    2. http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20October%202009.pdf

      In this one, they talk about roof repair and electrical repair costing 80,000

      Delete
    3. http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20March%202010.pdf

      This says the church has outdoor stations and a picnic area, but my reports have never said the parishioners have used outdoor stations or had picnics at the seminary?

      Delete
    4. http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/SCSF%20October%202010.pdf

      This was another failure of not to research and prevent the ruin of grass, which cost the parish money to replace the courtyard. Are the parishioners even allowed to be in the courtyard? I thought I had heard it is blocked off from those who paid for it? How much did the lack of maintenance cost the parish?

      Delete
  41. NEWS FLASH!

    Have you seen the Big 3's Facebook pages? They've blocked all their pix after Big Don's hysterical sermon about "dirty, filthy" practices on social media.

    How sad that you'll never see the Facebook photo of Big 3 men folk with their "biker babes" in shorts and with exposed arms mounted on scooters in Mexico. There's so much exposed flesh that there must've been a Sanbornian meltdown.

    Man, no wonder they took down those pix. And in mixed company, too. Luckily for them they quickly blocked all those hot scuba diving snaps.

    Tradistan would have dissolved in a paroxysm of lubricity and self-loathing with all that mixed swimming outside the immediate family, as defined in Big Don's manic modesty sermon. Click HERE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scuba diving at a beach, mixed sex, not wearing something modestly covering, put on social media? Was there rock and roll playing too?

      Does Sanborn realize this goes on at his church with his favorites? I thought someone said that one of those the priests said these were the people who will go to Heaven because they follow Sanborn?

      Delete
    2. Another response to: The Reader June 11, 2016 at 12:35 AM – thanks but no thanks, can’t listen to Sin-burn’s sermon. Just had dinner and prefer the food digest the traditional way!

      Delete
    3. Thanks Appalled. I'm not alone then in not wanting to listen to that sermon. I started listening but can't stomach his voice. That droning utterly false pietism is just too much.

      Delete
    4. Anon June 11 2:30 AM:

      On good authority, it seems that now Sin-Burn and crew know about all these gross violations of Christian modesty, hence the blocked social media accounts.

      The question is: Did he refuse to invoke the normal double standard for the Big 3 or did they police themselves just to stop a follow-up, flesh-obsessed sermon about "dirty, filthy" behavior?

      From what we've seen — and we've seen a lot — all these well-off folks were really into their Facebook presence. Will they begin to feel the debilitating effects of social-media withdrawal, the anxiety that results habitual users are denied access to their accounts?

      Oh, why can't Discipline Donnie understand that tradgirls just wanna have fun. (And tradboys, too.)

      Delete
    5. We wonder whether Big Don has seen that mixed swimming shot at the green lagoon, with all the wet tee-shits, swim suits, and bare arms. Even worse, those young people look like they're having fun. Has the rector condemned them to the fires of hell?

      Delete
    6. It wouldn't matter if he saw these people drunk as a skunk, swimming, at a rock concert. How much can they give to his seminary is all that is asked!

      Delete
    7. That's true. But what if they're not giving money the the pesthouse? What if it's all being lavished on the "chapel" and the "nunnery"? Might that stir up his righteous ire? They say money's not as plentiful as it was in the old days in MI.

      Delete
    8. They will always give money to that place. I do think the new convent will take some of his funds. People are much more apt to donate to cute little nuns than a tyrannical, crazy man who yells from the pulpit every Sunday.

      Delete
    9. Yeah, all that shouting and obsessing about dirt and filth has got to depress generosity.

      Delete
    10. How much of the church funds are given to the seminary? How many of the satellite chapels have a second collection that they are expected to donate for the seminary?

      Do the nuns have to contribute their donations and school tuitions to the seminary?

      In one of the newsletters, it says that the seminarians from poor countries can't pay tuition or even their toiletries. So, does he have ANY paying seminarians? And what is his "graduation" rate? I have a theory: maybe Sanborn gets these seminarians from poor countries so he can use them as servants for the chores around the seminary. They don't want to go back to their country, so he knows he can use them as he wishes. Look at the seminary newsletters of how they work them. Listen to the stories about the seminarians having to bathe his cat. Yet, maybe, that may be better than having to return to poor countries. Maybe it means Sanborn knows that the loyalty will be to him or he will threaten to send them back there?

      I find it hard to believe they can't fill up a seminary that basically gives free tuition, if one can't afford it. There are how many rooms? 18-20, but he can only fill up 4-5? He begins the year with maybe 12 and boasting about the high numbers, but then by spring break, he may have 5? And then he "graduates" maybe 10 percent, if that?

      There are stories going around from past seminarians that he makes them do all the maintenance work around the seminary. Then, he has photos of parishioners doing repair work around the seminary. So, he hires someone who can't do it right the first time, makes the seminarians keep up with his castle, and then he makes parishioners fix any problems this creates? Are these even qualified parishioners doing the work? And what kind of money is that costing the parish to keep up with lousy management?

      Delete
    11. I don't think it's excessive to say that mixed sex swimming is sinful in today's society, given the types of swimwear that are used. I don't understand why a priest or bishop is being condemned for saying this is immoral. Isn't it his job to warn his flock about occasions of sin?

      I'm curious what you people think *would* constitute sinful immodesty. So, let's hear it — can you give me an example of what you would consider sinful immodesty?

      Delete
    12. The point is hypocrisy in the sermon. It's banned for some and not for all. Why is this so hard for anyone to see?

      Delete
    13. AnonymousJune 12, 2016 at 12:57 AM

      It's obvious you haven't seen the social media accounts of the élite at Sanborn's cult center. They're all mixed in tight blouses, genes, mixed swimming, and two-piece swim suits or even more provocative wet tee-shirts. Then they're on motor scooters with thigh-high shorts. It;s a flesh-a-palooza.

      Why can't their "bishop" control them? We mean, these are the élite. They're the models that everyone is supposed to follow.

      Delete
    14. Several things.

      I think it's a waste of time to talk about other people's "hypocrisy". Just worry about your own soul.

      Secondly, have you thought that maybe the bishop *is* trying to control them, by preaching sermons against their behavior on Facebook or wherever you're talking about? If his flock are going around dressed immodestly, as you claim, then why are you complaining that he's preaching *against* these things? Isn't that what he's *supposed* to do?

      Thirdly, where on earth did anyone say these people are models that anyone is supposed to follow? What bishop or priest ever said such a thing?

      Lastly, no, I haven't looked at the social media pages of whoever you're talking about. I have better things to worry about than how short some trad girl's shorts are when she's on a motor scooter, or whatever you're talking about. Who cares??! It's not my business, and it's not yours. On the other hand, it IS the business of these people's clergy, who seem to be trying to correct this problem, and you're complaining that they're trying to correct this problem.

      You people are a mess. Just worry about your own soul and let other people worry about theirs.

      Delete
    15. Sanborn, Selway, and co. have always held them up as perfect examples. Why do you think they ahave been named the big 3 for about 15-20 years now? If you want something done, than the big 3 need to be on board. How should your kids' behave, look to the shining examples of the big 3. How should you run your life, look to the big 3 and find out how they do it. "The big 3 always listen to Sanborn, which is why they will be the ones who will go to Heaven," (that one is almost a direct quote from several of Sanborn's priests.)

      Who cares about the social media that anyone of these people use though. If priests can use it, why can't the parishioners? But, again, that is part of the hypocrisy, not by the parishioners, but if the clergy themselves.

      Anon June 12, 3:13, you obviously have no clue of what is actually going on in these places.

      Delete
    16. "The big 3 always listen to Sanborn, which is why they will be the ones who will go to Heaven,"

      I don't believe any priest ever said such a thing. Do you have any proof for this outrageous claim?

      Delete
    17. Yes, I have proof: I go around with a tape recorder recording them. Are you serious? I've heard them say it, and so have many others. They wouldn't say it in a sermon, but they have no problem telling people this in person.

      Delete
    18. A better andwer would be to ask them if they have ever said this. Ask them if they actually think this. Ask who they have told this to, and if they actually give a name of many people who "could have made this up", you have your answer that these lisrs have said it but don't want to admit it.

      Delete
    19. I'm not sure why someone comes to read this, but then refuses to believe anything that is said, even with multiple witness accounts.

      It's like the whole Sgg scandal all over again. Half the parish leaves, no one is left in their school, many witnesses repeat their experience, yet SGG's cult refuses to believe they have any proof? What do these people want? Cell phone videos? It isn't going to happen because remember none of kids are allowed cell phones and who is going to whip out a cell phone on church property and start video taping?

      Delete
  42. What is really interesting is the compound that is building around MHT. If you look around mht on spring lake highway/Dallas drive you can see which names are buying up properties around mht and new convent. The names and LLC's are paishioners. It's starting to sound like the grape kool-aid is going to come out soon.

    https://www.hernandocountygis-fl.us/PropertySearch/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very soon the cult compound will become Cult City, FL.

      Delete
  43. Well, that sure was an interesting look-see!!!

    ReplyDelete