Saturday, July 30, 2016


No one escapes talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it seriously. Montaigne

Pistrina is now in its eighth consecutive month of laying bare the idiocies and illiteracies of little Dannie Dolan's dreadfully executed ORDO 2016. (Remember we posted twice in December 2015 just after "One Hand" put his monstrosity on sale.) Throughout the remaining six months of this year-long, monthly series, we'll be featuring, in addition to the usual errors of language and failures of editorial competence, some liturgical blunders.

We're limiting our discussion of these blunders because liturgical details of this sort are highly complex and super technical. However, although they may not matter much to the average layman, they do matter to priests, who are obliged to say the divine office and celebrate Mass correctly. (They also hope the ordo they use is both accurate and not misleading.)

But before we get into this week's examples of ineptitude, we need to pause at mid-year to ask, Who really produced the Iliad of errors that the cult put out as its ORDO 2016? All along we've assigned the blame for all the boo-boos to "One-Hand Dan," and rightly so, because the embarrassing project was issued as $GG's ordo, and Wee Dan is MR. $GG.

But, let's all get real, shall we? Wee Dan hasn't the pluck, work ethic, or background to assemble and transcribe a full year's worth of text from old ordines. True, he's ignorant enough to commit all the blunders we've uncovered, but we can't see his sitting down and doing all the grunt work to grind out 110 word-processed pages of trash on his own. The guy doesn't drive a car, so how could we expect him to produce camera-ready copy for an error-infused ordo?

No way. Someone else has to be co-responsible for the mess. But who?

Checkie comes first to mind, primarily owing to all the bad Latin and all the editorial inconsistencies. But we can't envision the Cheeseball's knuckling down to compiling an ordo when he'd much prefer dabbling in his smarmy "Internet apostolate" on YouTube. (It's Tradistan's version of "Pee Wee's Playhouse.") So, more likely, we'll have to put the finger on one of the Young Fakers at $GG.  For obvious reasons, it could never be that hopeless yokel Lurch. However, it might be either Uneven-Steven or, with infinitely greater probability (considering Uneven's irregular "formation" [LOL]), the Forlorn Finn (unless the "principal" was drafted to do the job).

Isofar as we haven't yet confirmed the co-compiler's alter ego, we decided to invent a name so Dannie can share the blame with some concrete personage. Nothing apropos came to our minds until one of our learned commenters, the superb Tarquinius, reminded us of the late Umberto Eco's feral character Salvatore of Montferrat (appearing in the dazzling postmodern novel, The Name of the Rose). The narrator's description of this man-beast's speech fits the $GG co-compiler to a tee:
...I could never understand then, what language he spoke. It was not Latin, in which the lettered men of the monastery expressed themselves, it was not the vulgar tongue of those parts, or any other I had ever heard...I realized Salvatore spoke all languages, and no language. Or, rather, he had invented for himself a language...but [it was] precisely the Babelish language of the first day after the divine chastisement, the language of primeval confusion. Nor, for that matter, could I call Salvatore's speech a language, because in every human language there are rules and every term signifies ad placitum [= "by agreement"] a thing, according to a law that does not change...And yet, one way or another, I did understand what Salvatore meant...(pp. 46-47 of W. Weaver's 1983 translation).
Salvatore of Montferrat it is, then! Simply perfect for the blithering idiot who helped put together Dannie's disaster! For short, we'll call him "Silly Sal" from now own.

With the co-compiler's name settled, it's time for a quick look at Dim Dan's and Silly Sal's goofs for this month. We'll begin with what we think is a really easy-to-understand liturgical faux pas (at least on the part of these Tradistani fanatics): While examining Dannie's ORDO 2016, we Readers were struck by a note subjoined to four First Saturdays (Jan. 2, Feb. 6, Sep. 3, and Dec. 3), which allowed a votive Mass of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Since we hadn't seen such a note in the pre-1955 American ordines in our collection, we were puzzled — until an authentic liturgical expert informed us that the practice originated in the 1960 (!!!) rubrics (cf. NR, #385 [c]).

Looks like someone got something confused.

Dumbo Dannie's and Silly Sal's liturgical confusion, as usual, extends to Latin usage.  Consider this garbled note for March 25 (p. 35):

Annuntiatio BMV die 4 Aprilis translatum

Although the text is sheer nonsense, here's one literal translation (if such a thing is possible here):

The Annunciation of the BVM from the 4th day of April a transferred thing*


H-E-L-L-O-O-O,  S-A-L-V-A-T-O-R-A-A-A-Y-Y-Y-Y...

O.K., O.K. O.K., you rabid, depraved cultlings!

We hear your guttural protests that Dannie's and Silly Sal's horrific Latin is still intelligible. Fine by us, then! We'll concede the Latin doesn't have to be grammatically or syntactically correct in order to figure out that the Feast of the Annunciation for the year 2016 is transferred to April 4 owing to Good Friday's falling on March 25.

HOWEVER, we do insist: if you're producing a Latin ordo, then the instructions shouldn't be written in dog Latin. We affirm they should be written in the Latin of the "lettered men of the monastery," and not in Salvatore of Montferrat's somehow decipherable gibberish.

Apparently what happened was that Silly Sal and Dimwit Dannie confused the verbal formulae for the starting- and end-points of a transferred feast. And since neither understands Latin, they used the wrong verb form — probably because their models were abbreviated, and our two sede clowns didn't have the requisite knowledge to expand them correctly. We'll explain s briefly as we can:
Translatum is a (neuter) perfect passive participle meaning "(having been) transferred," the neuter noun festum ("feast") — or even officium ("office") — being the understood antecedent. In the competently executed ordines of the past, it's used on the day to which (viz., Apr. 4) the feast is transferred, not on the day from which it's transferred (viz., Mar. 25). Silly Sal and Dannie, copying from a good model, get this right on April 4 with their Transl. ex 25 Mar. (= translatum ex 25 Martii, "transferred from March 25"). Inasmuch  as they were content to reproduce the abbreviated phrase of their original, they dodged a bullet there.
As for the gobbledegook they printed for March 25, we have no idea how they could have botched it so grotesquely. In a number of American ordines, we've seen a note something like the following: Fest(um) Annuntiat(ionis) B(eatae) M(ariae) V(irginis) transf(ertur) in  [arabic numeral] April(is) — "the Feast of the Annunciation of the BVM is transferred to the xth of April."
The question is: Why didn't these Bozos just reproduce, with the appropriate date change, that abbreviated text instead of trying to make up their own? Maybe they were trying to show off or to differentiate their edition from other editions. Who knows what goes on in these morons' minds? The better question, however, is How did they make such a galactic blunder if they had models in front of them?

One possibility is they might have confused the letter f in the abbreviation transf for the letter l in the abbreviation Transl, and as a result fell flat on their ignorant faces as they tried to spell the word out. To be sure, if either one of the idiots had studied first-year Latin, he would have sensed something was wrong since Annuntiatio is feminine and therefore couldn't be modified by the neuter translatum.

Their ignorance of basic Latin as well as their unfamiliarity with liturgical-Latin usage also caused another HUGE error — the word die in the ablative case (the "from" case in its true ablative function).  First off, these two knuckleheads didn't have enough sense to realize that in a liturgical note like this, you're pointing TO a future date, so the ablative is wrong. Furthermore, the blunder shows Dannie and Silly Sal aren't familiar with standard rubrical texts where the usual idiom "to transfer to" is transferre in + the accusative case.** Accordingly, if they had to insert the Latin word for "day" (as do some liturgical books), they should have written "in diem 4 Aprilis."

PL has said it a thousand times, but we'll say it again. Little Dannie Dolan and his whole cult crew are faking it. They're trying to trick you into believing they're the Church's last stand so you'll hand over your money to keep the crumbling cult center afloat. It's a sure bet that if he's wrong about the liturgy, he's wrong about theology. You can put an end to all Wee Dan's confounded babbling about stuff he knows nothing about:


*Of course, you could argue that, by translating it as "the Annunciation of the BVM on the 4th day of April [is] a transferred thing," you get something that very distantly approaches sense. But that's a laughable stretch. Besides, no Catholic liturgist has ever written such a barbarity. The shades of Gavantus would shriek, no doubt.

** Here are only a few of many, many examples culled almost at random from the literature, which will illustrate how ignorant Dumb Dannie and Silly Sal are of liturgical Latin usage. In the Rubrics we find the following: transfertur in primam diem and transfertur in Feriam secundam sequentem. Among liturgical writers we find transferenda sunt in aliam diem (de Herdt), transferenda sunt in proximiorem insequentem diem (Wuest),  transferatur in aliam diem and transfertur in 25 junii (Callewaert), and in quam diem festa transferri debeant (Wapelhorst).  In the Roman Missal we find transferenda sit in Dominicam majorem. Some authors (v.g., Wuest and Bouvry) occasionally use ad instead of in, but the object of the preposition is always an accusative. It's as plain as the nose on your face (unless you're Salvatore of Montferrat, that is): Dannie and Co. don't really study the liturgy or else they would've correctly used this very common liturgical expression. All they really can do is put on dolly-dress-up shows, for which you don't need any Latin or professional rubrical knowledge.


  1. Sacra Rituum Congregatio Prot. No. D.1-954


    Prot. No. D. 1-954


    Em.mi Cardinales, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi Ordinariique omnes Ditionis Statuum Foederatorum Americae Septentrionalis, in Episcopali Annuo Coetu Vashingtoniae nuper coadunato, in illud uniforme devenerunt votum, ut nempe a.Sanctitate Sua implorarent indultum quo, in universa Ditione Americae Septentrionali, celebrari valeat primo cuiusvis mensis Sabbato Missa votiva de Immaculato Corde B. M. Virginis. Quod votum ac preces Exc.mus ac Rev.mus Dominus Hamletus Ioannes Cicognani, ea in Ditione Delegatus Apostolicus, Sanctissimo Domino Nostro PIO PAPAE XIIo exhibuit et commendavit. Sacra porro Rituum Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi ab Eodem Domino nostro specialiter tributis, attentis expositis, benigne annuit pro gratia iuxta preces, pro unica videlicet Missa votiva de Immaculato Corae B.M.V. primo Sabbato cuiuslibet mensis, in omnibus ecclesiis et oratoriis celebranda, dummodo non occurrat festum duplex I vel II classis, Feria, Vigilia aut Octava, quae sint ex privilegiatis, necnon Festum, Vigilia seu Octava ipsius B.M.V., et insuper aliquod pium exercitium peragatur in honorem ipsius Deiparae. Servatis de cetero Rubricis. Valituro praesenti indulto ad proximum quinquennium. Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscumque. Die 8 Januarii 1954.


    Caietanus Card. Cicognani ,S.R.C. Praef.

    X A. Carinci, Arch. Seleucien. S.R.C. a secretis

    1. "Corae" should be "Corde" the OCR didn't read the scan correctly - and I failed to fully proof-read it.

    2. Thanks. We'll forward this to our liturgical expert. It certainly explains why our copy of the 1954 Cincinnati Ordo, the latest we have of all our ordines, didn't list the Mass for first Saturdays.

      Still, wouldn't this be considered a "Bugnini" reform by the $GG cult and therefore something never to be adopted?

    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. I think it was from a 1956 / 57 Ordo (it has the Pian reformed rubrics in it) - stupidly I forgot to photocopy the title page 20 years ago when I discovered it so I could give you the source.

    Oddly enough many years ago I drew this decree to the attention of the compiler of the "Ordo" which is the subject blog of this entry - I never knew what he did with it until now.

    1. We're very grateful that you shared it with us. The compiler's decision to include it confirms a number of our suspicions.

      We find two things amusing:

      (1) That the SW Ohio cult condemns all innovations originating in the "Bugnini era" and yet "contaminates" its own ordo with one;

      (2) The ordo that we have was the cult's "universal" edition, so an indult granted for the United States of America is out of place. (Very telling is the fact that the date and source are not given.)

      It's interesting to observe that the 1954 indult was granted for a five-year period, so we might ask (with tongue in cheek), Does that 1st Sat. Mass's appearance in their ordo mean they accept NR, #385 [c]?

    2. I think it falls under the "rubric" of "epikeia" a Greek word (so I am told) which translates into English (in some circles): "We make it up as we go along."

    3. Yes, indeed: that must be it.

  3. Anon August 1, 2016 at 3:13 AM

    You hit the nail right on the head.

  4. NB: the Novus Ordo, the cult of Bergoglio does NOT claim to be Traditional Catholic.

    But SGG (and similar cults) claim to be Traditional Catholic. So this needs to be exposed before a trad Catholic audience or readership.

    There is no need to flog the Novus Ordo horse because trad Catholics already know that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic (not in doctrine, not in morals, not in liturgy, etc) and does not claim to be traditional Catholic.

    This doesn't mean that I consider the Novus Ordo to be OK, or that the Novus Ordo should be let off lightly. As a trad Catholic, I ignore the Novus Ordo and when I come to this blog, I do not expect the editors of this blog to dwell on the Novus Ordo (or its antics). I expect this blog to discuss trad Catholicism and shine its spotlight on the trad "clergy" where said "clergy" affects trad Catholics. I have no personal animosity against any of the editors of this blog. Do they abuse, exploit trad Catholics (in the manner that Dannie, Checkie, etc. do)?

  5. Is the claim verbal or in writing?

  6. Have you ever read the reviews for The Most Holy Trinity Seminary on Yelp? Amazing! They have 4 hidden reviews trashing the place. One review written by Heiner (True Restoration Radio) was removed due to violating policies. I can't find reviews for Saint Gertrude, why is that?

    1. No, we never even thought of looking on Yelp. Thanks for the tip. We suppose the Heiner review was meant to offset the negative comments.

  7. Hey Readers,

    Do you know if the eulogies before V2 were like they do them today in the Novus ordo? I think right now they do them before the would-be canon starts.

    I have also seen some eulogies being done in the actual funeral, not in the mass.

    1. I actually found this, from the GIRM itself:

      382: At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.

      So not even the new missal allows for eulogies within the funeral mass? How come this is some all the time? Is this just another case of the law saying one thing and the people doing the opposite in practice?

    2. I meant to say, "How come this is done all the time?"

    3. Because the priest now does whatever the people want (as long as it's something perverse and disrespectful to God).

    4. Yes, in the NO as in the Bush's bean commercial, there are no rules.

      The worst thing about the NO funerals is the instant canonization of the deceased ("now looking down on us from heaven" etc., etc.)

    5. The worst thing about the NO funerals is the instant canonization of the deceased ("now looking down on us from heaven" etc., etc.)

      Yep, I see this all the time. But what else can the people do if that's what the new hierarchy teaches them?

      This too is forbidden by Novus Ordo law, viz., to start saying that the person is already saved.

      What a mess.

  8. Does PL know what is going on with Fr. Michael Oswalt? How come he keeps his distance from any CMRI function, and why did he leave Mount St. Michael's? Whenever I ask anyone associated with them, I get the brush off or an evasive response which is no answer at all.


    1. The last we heard was in June when Dannie Dolan wrote the following in his "Bishop's (?) Corner":

      In the afternoon Fr. Oswalt stopped by for a visit. Seven years ago he visited us as he took the first steps to leave the Novus Ordo. Since then he did and was re-ordained, and now pastors St. Benedict’s chapel in Huntsville, AL, established to serve the souls salvaged from the shipwreck of Abbot Leonard Giardina’s Christ the King Abbey. Fr. Oswalt has a little Mass circuit through the deep south and up to Frankfort, KY and is careful to give his faithful a good doctrinal formation. He travels with a Lab, whose dogma is excellent. It was good to see this zealous priest again.

      It would be a pity if he escaped the CMRI only to fall into the clutches of the SW-Ohio cult.

    2. "Travels with a lab"? Does he mean Labrador?

    3. We guess that's it, based on Dannie's stupid pun.

    4. As a point of information regarding Fr. Oswalt; In my understanding he didn't "leave" Mount St. Michael's. After serving as an associate there following his (conditional I presume, but I don't know) ordination by Bishop Pivarunas he has been assigned to St. Benedict Chapel in Lacey's Spring, AL From my reading this is a chapel established by the CMRI when the TLM was no longer provided at Christ the King Abbey after the death of Abbot Giardina in 2011.

    5. Thanks for the information. We're sure it has answered others' questions. The visit with Dannie, then, was just a social one.

    6. Yes, I think it's one of Dannie's stupid puns. Lab = DOGma

  9. No, it didn't answer my question.

    A few weeks ago on here, someone posted that Fr. Oswalt said that MSM was evil (or something along those lines - but the word "evil" was used). I asked what they meant, but they did not answer. That is what I want to know. What is "evil" about the Mount?