Saturday, November 12, 2016


Hold the traditions which you have learned. 2 Thessalonians

Editor's Note: We didn't offer a DISORDERED ORDO in October owing to our participation in the Lay Governance Conference. November's condensed entry will take its place. We're posting the feature earlier in the month than usual because the SGG cult has already begun hawking its "All Saints Roman Catholic Calendar 2017 A.D. (sic! The A.D. era marker comes before the year!)"*: Catholics need a strong reminder to stay away from anything the cult produces related to the Church's liturgical year: chances are, it's far from traditional and likely to be marred with errors.

This installment's example of the cult masters' incompetence will not only demonstrate how far Dimwit Dannie's ORDO 2016 strays from traditional American liturgical practice but will prove beyond a doubt our long-maintained conclusion that SGG's "universal" ordo is not universal.

That fact in itself should discourage European, Australian and New Zealand, African, and Latin American buyers from wasting their money. The year is running out, and there's still the looming danger that "One-Hand Dan" and his Silly Sal may be shameless enough to offer for sale an ordo for 2017. So let's get right to the exposé without further introduction.

For Sunday, July 3 (p. 65), we find the following caption for the day (N.B. Blogger won't allow the ampersand sign, so we replaced it with the Latin word for "and"):
SOLEMNITAS SS PETRI ET PAULI APP ("The Solemnity of SS. Peter and Paul, Apostles")
As Matters Liturgical  (❡692, 1942 ed.) explains, in the United States, the June 29 Feast of SS. Peter and Paul "is not of precept." However, by indult its "External Solemnity is transferred to the Sunday following." (Note, BTW, that Dannie's caption fails to identify it as an external Solemnity — another gross lapse of liturgical accuracy.)

Therefore, once again we see SGG's ordo is meant for Americans, despite its website's advertisement of a "Universal Edition." More importantly, the announcement of the external solemnity in Dannie's highly eccentric ordo does not follow the best practice of traditional American pre-conciliar ordines. In the good ol' days, the well-formed compilers understood that this Mass for SS. Peter and Paul was a privileged Solemn Votive Mass, so the principal caption for the Sunday remained as the "xth day after Pentecost." Notice of the permitted external solemnity was accordingly made in the entry for the preceding day.

Here's what Deficient Dannie ought to have done, if he were liturgically savvy and faithful to American Catholic tradition:
At the end of the entry for Saturday, July 2, the Wee One should have printed — at the very minimum — something like Cras Solemnitas externa Ss Petri et Pauli App celebratur ("tomorrow the external Solemnity of Ss. Peter and Paul, Apostles, is celebrated"). Then for Sunday, July 3, the caption should have read only Dom[inica] VII post Pentecosten ("7th Sunday after Pentecost"). That's what competent American ordines used to do. (Check out, for instance, this sampling from past decades: 1927 St. Paul, MN; 1937 Columbus, OH; 1946 St. Paul, MN; 1954 Cincinnati, OH.)
But, as we all know, His Independency can't be bothered to follow tradition.*It's too confining for his free-wheeling, "do-what-I-want" ways. Plus, it may be that he probably never learned tradition in the first place.

What traditional Catholics must take away from "One Hand's" demonstrated ignorance of how things were really done in the pre-conciliar Church is this:

Cult teachings are arbitrary. You cannot rely on what the malformed cult masters tell you about the liturgy, about theology, or about faith and morals. Get out today!

* Last week we highlighted an error of English usage on Dannie's July 2017 calendar page. Today, we point out a more serious illustration of his contempt for tradition. On Sggresources,  "One Hand" offers a page from his calendar profiling St. John Fisher, where His Deficiency quotes the following verses from John 17: 3-5: 
Eternal life is this: to know You, the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ. I have given you glory on earth by finishing the work You gave me to do. Do you now, Father, give me glory at your side. 
The problem here is that this is a hyper-modern translation. In fact, we found the exact translation, with only minor differences in capitalization, in Prayers and Devotions from Pope John Paul II (click here. ) If Dannie were so traditional, why, then, didn't he quote from the traditional Douay version revised by Challoner?
Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself. (TAN text)
And if SGG didn't own a copy of the Douay or wanted a slightly more up-to-date version, why didn't "One Hand" quote from the 1941 Confraternity version?
Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. I have glorified thee on earth; I have accomplished the work that thou hast given me to do. And now do thou, Father, glorify me with thyself. (St. Anthony Guild Press text)
But if Dirtbag Dannie thought the Confraternity language was still too "traditional" for his modern tastes, why didn't he at least quote from Mgr. Knox's 1945 translation?
Eternal life is knowing thee, who art the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have exalted thy glory on earth, by achieving the task which thou gavest me to do; now, Father, do thou exalt me at thy own side. (New Advent text)
For all his claims about the evils of the liturgical reform movement of the '50s, it's obvious that Dannie doesn't like tradition; in his heart, he seems to prefer novelty. BTW, there's also another blunder in English in the St. John Fisher profile. Dannie writes, "While imprisoned in the tower of London he was made a Cardinal..."(emphasis ours). Real traditional Catholics with an education know that the correct verb is "created."

Or is it possible that SGG "borrowed" much of their copy from another source? If you compare Dannie's text (click here and then click on the the image of St. John Fisher at the lower right ) to the the text found at Catholic Online/ (click here), you'll discover some startling textual similarities that surely cannot be the result of pure chance. (Hmmmmmm. We're thinking of a word, and it begins with p...)

**As an aside, we point out that Dannie doesn't follow American practice in listing the order of the Sunday Masses. For example, the 1954 Cincinnati ordo and many others list Mass 1 as that of the Sunday and Mass 2, as that of Peter and Paul. But not Mr. Make-it-Up-As-You-Go.  He reverses the order. 


  1. MHT got the fall ember days wrong. They posted in the bulletin and front the pulpit that it was one week then the next week, oops, just kidding, they are really THIS week. Our bad. How do they get that wrong?

    1. *from the pulpit

    2. Unbelievable! So much for all the hype about MHT's "standards." Big Don, the Kid, Scut, and Squirmin' Herman all together could get the ember days on their first try.

      Fall Quarter Tense is so easy to remember since it follows a fixed day (Holy Cross, Sep. 14). Only utterly malformed fools could make that error. Even Dumbo Dan's 2016 calendar, which is full of mistakes, got the days right. Furthermore, "One Hand" also got the days right in his disgraceful ORDO 3016.

      Could it be that SInburn has such little regard for Dannie's efforts that they all just assumed they needed to "correct" the dates?

      Traditional Catholics should run from MHT as fast as they can. The cult masters can't even play "make-believe" well.

    3. Unbelievable from the supposed premier seminary left producing (hopefully) valid priests! The kind of thing Zully does every year when the first Sunday of September falls during the last days of August.

  2. So you're back, huh? All these supposed "meetings" and congresses and conventions of people coming from all over the world to hear you speak, and where is the fruit of any of this? How many chapels do you have? How many have you converted to your brand of lay governance? How many priests do you have working for you?

    It's very easy to write on the internet that you have all this stuff going on. It's not quite so easy to put up any pictures of it, or upload any audio of your speeches, or give any lists of the chapels or clergy you influence. Especially when none of it is real.

    By the way, I'm sorry your candidate lost her bid for the White House.

    1. Oh, our movement is very real, and, BTW, our preferred hopeful did not lose the election. Lists of chapels, names of affiliated clergy, numbers of followers, and conference documentation are not germane to the mission of this blog, which is to inform Catholics of the dangers and bankruptcy of Tradistan.

      Scoff as you will, we are winning, and your cult masters are on the way out. It's only a matter of a little time. The word is out there.

  3. To Anonymous at 11/13/16 @ 6:18

    His conferences are as real as the witnesses to a one handed ordination. Do you see a pattern emerging? Nameless faceless witnesses, and nameless faceless priests who have nameless chapels. Nine priests saw nothing. Yet the "charism" of the priesthood wouldn't let them sign it unless they were morally certain. Yeah. Wasn't one signatory "Bp Sinborn?" The charism of the priesthood prevents him from sinning only in that one limited area, right? Nevertheless this invented idea doesn't prevent raping children or soliciting for sex in the confessional which was proscribed under the 1917 Code. They have witnesses but not even one is willing to be named.

    He invents phony principles, bolstered by phony witnesses, and attends phony conferences. It's all made up. The emperor has no clothes!

    1. The witnesses to the 1976 one-handed ordination are very real. Naming the witnesses is irrelevant because our goal has been to encourage "One Hand," who knows what happened to him on that ordination day in Écône, to seek conditional ordination and consecration, in order to make certain the sacraments he claims to effect are valid beyond question.

      As for the last paragraph, it describes the cult masters, not PL. We deal in facts. Denying them won't make them any less true.

    2. Let's see. You have all these witnesses to something that you claim happened. You went to a meeting with a bunch of other like-minded people who flew in from all over the world. You are spreading your influence all over the internet.

      You claim all these things, yet you have never published a shred of proof. No pictures, no names, no information of any kind that your readers can verify for themselves somewhere other than on your website. All we get is "the witnesses ... are VERY real."

      Let me pull out my Occam's Razor for a second. There are two explanations for this:

      1) Everything you're saying is true. It's all real, but you just don't want to put it on the internet.

      2) It's all just stuff you made up, and the reason you're not offering any proof that we can verify is that you don't have any.

      The razor is pointing at #2.

    3. I am a witness to many of the problems that have happened at one of these places. What pistrina writes is not only true, but they only know (or write about) half of the coverups that have happened here.

      I can't attest to the one-hand witness or to the meetings. I can only confirm that not only is this place filled with coverups, abuse, and religious intimidation by the clergy and it's special parishioners, but that there is so much disgusting behavior going on that the place should be shut down completely.

    4. Anonymous Nov. 14, 10:40 AM should learn how to control his/her metaphors. Razors don't point. BTW, 10:40's competing hypotheses have the same number of assumptions, so Occam's Razor is useless here to decide which one to select.

      If we were trying to convince 10:40 and others that Dannie had been ordained with one hand, then we would reveal the names of the eyewitnesses. But we're not. Our objective is to motivate Dannie (who knows what really happened) to get himself fixed. Hence, following our own rule of editorial parsimony, there's reason to disclose identities.

      As for the Lay Governance Conference: first, it's not an enterprise run by PL, though we support its ends and on occasion promote the model as a means to protect Catholics from the cult masters. But the institution of lay governance is not the principal objective of this blog, so, as we've said time and again, pix, audio, video, & lists of priests and chapels are not germane. Besides, the organization is private in order to protect relatives of members from the retaliation on the part of Tradistani "bishops."

    5. In addition, Anon @10:40 is using the false dilemma fallacy (a.k.a. false binary or black-and-white thinking) which may be confirmation bias or perhaps to lead people into rejecting all of the information contained at PL.

    6. No false dilemma. Either the conference happened or it did not. There is no proof offered for the conference other than your ipse dixit. I attend a Chapel run by an independent Sedevacantist priest ordained in 1960. He said he never heard of this so-called conference, nor has it been mentioned by the many independent priests he knows.

      The reasonable inference is that you are a liar.

    7. Anonymous November 14, 2016 at 8:31 PM – “He said he never heard of this so-called conference, nor has it been mentioned by the many independent priests he knows”.

      I don’t believe you. May we have the name of your independent sedevacantist priest, see a copy of his ordination certificate, and perhaps his location so we can do a background on him to prove he is real?
      And how about the names and locations of all these independent priests he knows?

    8. Very few, especially run-of-the-mill, malformed independent priests who can't be trusted, should have heard of the conference outside of PL. The overarching group doesn't advertise or solicit membership, and the directorate is closed. The Readers, in fact, aren't even members. We were invited to attend several years ago because of our posts, but our active involvement is limited to helping organize the annual meeting simply because one of us has had experience in setting up such gatherings. Those of us who attend are officially designated "observers" and have no standing to comment or vote on motions, and some workshops are not open to our particiaption. In addition, we cannot attend directorate or legislative assembly meetings.

      The Lay Governance group purposefully maintains a low profile and a very select membership for several reasons. One is that some family members are at risk of being targeted by the "bishop"-led cults. Another is that working anonymously in the background is the best way to become, when the time is ripe, the disruptive force that brings down the Tadistani kingpins and restores chapels to the laity who provide the funds.

      Anon. 8:31's doubts are encouraging because they indicate to us that all those associated with the group are keeping tight lips. That means the cult masters have no inkling of the LG associates who assist at their chapels and work quietly against them.

    9. Apparently Anon. 10:40 & 8:31 is carrying water for the cult masters by demanding the identities and photos of Lay Governance attendees.

      The Tradistani "bishops" would love that information, wouldn't they?

      When will this cult errand boy realize that his snarky insinuations and wild inferences won't tempt PL to divulge privileged information?

    10. I can't divulge the information of my independent priest because I can't divulge "privledged information." Believe me? If not, they same holds for the sad individual above!

    11. I've been involved in these places. These men do go after one's character if you cross them. If they realize they can't get to you through their intimidation or thrashing of your character, they will go through any of your friends and relatives that still belong to that mess they call a church. First, by having them tell you to repent and come back to the only true church. When that doesn't work, they will have them ignore you (yes, even family will be told to do this) and spread around how you have lost your faith. It's crazy type thinking, but it seems to suit them well. This has happened to several people I know. Letters were even sent to some of the people telling them to repent.

      If Anon 4:17 doesn't belong to these groups, how do you know it is not true? If you don't want to divulge your own identity, than why do you expect others to do so? Have you investigated any of these claims yourself or are you just content to whatever your "independent" priest says?

      From someone who has been there, i can tell you that the claims of abuse of children in these places are true. I can tell you there is money being hidden. I can also tell you the seal of confession has been broken at these places. I can tell you that if you publicly speak out about these men, they will seek to ruin your reputation. They will split apart families without a bat of the eye. They will destroy your faith if you stay with them, and destroy your reputation if you try to leave.

    12. While fully admitting that "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," it is equally true that "he who asserts must prove." You want people to believe that this conference exists---prove it!! All of these priests in these chapels are afraid to be seen because Dolan will send a hit squad after them. All of these chapels have people who are connected to these ubiquitous evil doers! So it's all "privledged information." Yeah. Ok.

      A one-handed ordination? There are many witnesses but not one will come forward. The reason? This guy isn't trying to scare people away from SGG (ha!) but rather he wants to get Dolan "who knows what happened" to get re-ordained and consecrated. Now why would a cult-leader and "moral dirtbag" do that? It's an exercise in futility if true. Moreover, if a witness to the one handed ordination took place, if he made himself/herself known, that would lend credibility to your charge and motivate Dolan to do exactly what you claim you want him to do.

      I'm not the anonymous poster above, but my priest has not heard of this conference either! He is NOT Sedevacantist but recognize and resist.

      Here's the information:
      Name :Fr John Evangelista
      Chapel: Ave Maria Chapel
      Address: 210 Maple Avenue
      Westbury, NY 11590
      Phone: 516-333-6470

      President of the Board: Mr. Richard Cuneo

      Father Gommar A DePauw, JCD, Founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement was the pastor until his Holy passing in 2005. Fr John has been with us since 2008. He was ordained in 1960. Why don't they know about this conference? They are in NO WAY affiliated with any SGG, ant sedevacantists or any SSPX.

      I have given hard core information to your readers and you. Let's see the spin and baloney you come up with to allegedly not give any information. It's "privledged" It's "not germane"

      In reality, It's NOT REAL You are a LIAR!

    13. Are you asserting that all anons are liars?

      If that is the case, how do we know you are not lying about your above pastor? I could just as easily copied that from the Internet.

      There was an enormous departure from SGG in 2009 (? On the year) based on the abuses at one of these places. Look at SGG's own newsletters to see the proof. Recently, there were witnesses at MHT who have said the same of their church and school. Both of these places had specific details given that only insiders of the places would know. SGG even had more than anonymous witnesses come forward to give witness to the abuses. So, I'm guessing you believe those are lies too?

      by the way, I find it hard to believe any priest not associated with these men would defend them, if only due to sedevacantist position.

    14. No one is defending them. Nice bait and switch. I'm questioning the conference and the one handed ordination. People can call the Chapel and see if they have ever heard of the conference. It's called "independent verification" and NOT "believe what I say because I said it."

      There was no conference. There was no one handed ordination. If you want to speak with Fr John after Mass, come to Long Island. Mass is every Sunday at 9 am, every Holy Day at 9:30 am and every First Saturday at 9:30 am.

      If this guy lies about conventions and makes up one handed ordinations, what else does he lie about?

    15. PL doesn't care whether 9:46 believes the conference took place or not. We mentioned its occurrence not to propose an object of belief but to explain why there would be no posts for a few weeks as some of us helped with with its management and others took a vacation.

      As for our hitherto unsuccessful effort to encourage "One Hand" to seek conditional orders, we believe it's always possible that he'll convert if we continue to prick his conscience. He knows the truth whereof our witnesses spoke. He mistakenly believed Checkie's error-filled defense of one-handed orders, and we're certain he had to assent to our conclusive rebuttal/refutation of Bonehead Tone's monograph, although he won't admit it. He just needs some time and constant reminders to strengthen his will. When he decides to cooperate with grace, he'll get himself fixed.

    16. "PL doesn't care whether 9:46 believes the conference took place or not. "
      Translation: "We made it up. We have no proof."

      "...cooperate with grace..." Translation: "We try to scare people away from SGG using the one-handed nonsense. We have no proof of that either."

      Bottom line: You received a real name and chapel that can be independently verified. All we have from you is hot air and cheesy excuses.

    17. PL did not request the name and the chapel. That came from another commenter.

    18. Who cares? The fact stands: I have substantial proof it didn't take place when a cleric who's filling the shoes of Fr DePauw doesn't know about such a conference. You assert it took place yet offer no proof. It's akin to the man on the Art Bell show who claims aliens are walking among us but he can't offer proof or he'll be killed.

    19. AnonymousNovember 16, 2016 at 9:14 PM
      Who cares? The fact stands: I have substantial proof it didn't take place when a cleric who's filling the shoes of Fr DePauw doesn't know about such a conference.

      So, if this cleric who fills the shoes of Fr. DePauw didn’t know of this specific conference, it never happened? Wow, I hope the participants know they didn’t attend a conference. If this shoe filling priest tells to you to jump off a bridge you comply, or that the sky is falling, you implicitly believe him?

      It has been explained this annual conference is a private conference. Your shoe filling priest didn’t know about it because it is private and he and the legions of independent priests he knows weren’t invited. What’s the issue? I wasn't invited either. P L isn’t preaching about the conference or posting its messages or conclusions or discoveries. P L merely stated that publication of the blog is suspended due to this conference. If your priest doesn’t know something, it doesn’t exist?

      Better watch your back. Possibly soon your bank balances won’t exist either.

    20. Nov. 16, 9:14

      Fr. Evangelista may rank high in your esteem, but he counts as nothing for many others. Your argument is ludicrous, for you're saying if he doesn't know something, it doesn't exist. That's only proof of his ignorance. Besides, LG has very little to do with trad priests because most cannot be trusted.

    21. So who CAN be trusted? Give us a name and Chapel. I'm saying also if Fr Evangelista doesn't know--and Fr DePauw was the FIRST TRADITIONALIST-there's a high probability it's bunk. Second, you assert with NO PROOF!

    22. To Anon 12:42. A "noseeum" argument goes like this: If you were asked "Is there an elephant in your backyard?" And you said no, I don't see one, that would be good evidence. If someone asked if there were a flea in your backyard and you said no, because I don't see one, it would be a bad argument. Why? You expect much evidence of the former and very little of the latter. A conference with many erudite priests and people flying in all over would not be in the same category as top CIA meetings. Word would get out especially among so many (and good) Traditionalist priests. We discount Bigfoot, Elvis sightings and one handed ordinations much the same way :-)

    23. For 17 Nov. 8:42's info, thousands of small, exclusive conferences take place each week without the world at large knowing. In fact, most small conferences are not even noticed at the venues where they take place. And if they take place at a private location, then they're even less visible. Also, note that we never talked about "many priests." (Duh! it's about LAY governance, and many traddie "priests" hate the idea.) The only "erudite" priest we mentioned was the keynote speaker, and he was invited because he is known to be in sympathy with the LG movement: he knows of too many horror stories like MHT and SGG. You and Fr. Evangelista never saw the conference because you were not supposed to.

      All the skepticism in the world will not erase the fact that such a conference did occur. We understand the burning urge to deny it, however. A committed, disciplined, and mission-focused small group can cause much disruption to the status quo if it flies under the radar and operates out of the reach of the vested interests it seeks to displace.

    24. The "Reader": "the institution of lay governance is not the principal objective of this blog"

      Come to think of it, would you mind telling us WHAT, exactly, *is* the object of this blog?

  4. Just go to the web for proof of letter to Dolan re: 1 handed ordination

    1. I don't deny the LETTER exists, However none of those priests were there. They did not witness anything nor do they name witnesses. The SSPV had no problem working with Dolan for 14 YEARS but it became a problem the year after he left them and Clarence Kelly had an axe to grind!

    2. They may not have been eyewitnesses, but they, and most of the SSPX, knew it happened. The problem then was that no one wanted to injure the abp.'s image. However, over time the SSPV came across information that put into question the fiction that one-handed ordination was OK. The Cheeseball stepped in with his tissue of errors, which no one had the learning to refute until PL exposed it for the nonsense it is.

    3. If "They may not have been eyewitnesses, but they, and most of the SSPX, knew it happened." They knew this... how?? They never named a single eyewitness. It's an urban legend like "alligators in the sewer" of NYC.
      The best refutation I've read is from this anonymous blog:

    4. As we've explained before, the culture of an organization passes on to its members morally certain knowledge of events in its history. In these cases, even second-hand reports of witness accounts (especially when the hearers personally know the witness) bear a very probable assurance of veracity.

      Moreover, just because our anonymous interlocutor cannot verify personally these accounts since he does not know the names of the witnesses does not mean the account is absolutely unverifiable. If our objective were to overcome his skepticism, then we would provide him with the written information we have and the names.

      However, as we have said so many times before, our aim is to motivate "One Hand Dan" to seek conditional orders in order to remove any doubts about his validity. Again we've said many a time that we don't know whether one-handed orders are valid or invalid: the Church has never pronounced on the subject. Seeing that he knows the truth, and now that Tony Baloney's monograph has been demolished, "One Hand" should elect the pars tutior, if only to silence his annoying critics.

      As an aside, we now doubt that the Church will ever decide on the question. Even if she were restored tomorrow, neither "One Hand" nor any of the malformed men he's ordained would ever be accepted as clergy of the Roman Catholic Church (not would any of the other Tradistani adventurers), so there would be no need.

    5. "As we've explained before, the culture of an organization passes on to its members morally certain knowledge of events in its history. In these cases, even second-hand reports of witness accounts (especially when the hearers personally know the witness) bear a very probable assurance of veracity."

      Translation: "We're trying to obfuscate the issue by writing gobbledygook. This is a stupid and invented principle that doesn't even make sense. We have no witnesses."

      Query: If Danny wouldn't be accepted as a real Catholic cleric, why do you care if he's valid or not? You can't receive sacraments from non-Catholics or those canonically unfit. The whole "one-hand" is to scare people away from SGG!

    6. As organizational theorists (e.g., Davies, Sulong) have observed, such informal communications networks exist in all groups ("the grapevine," scuttlebutt"), and are frequently highly reliable for the information they impart (Sulong).

      Reply: We care because some laypeople believe he is a legitimate Catholic cleric and seek sacraments from him. They also pay for his room and board. If there is any chance at all that one-handed orders are invalid, he owes it in justice to these souls to remedy the threat.

      And, yes, you're right:: as long as there is the possibility that he is confecting invalid sacraments, we do want to scare people away from SGG.

    7. Please give an exact citation so I may vet your source. The original story was that Lefebvre had just finished ordaining deacons and ordained ALL priestly candidates with one hand! That included Richard Williamson. Clarence Kelly, upon becoming a bishop, would conditionally confirm those who had received the sacrament from Williamson. The members were told to stay away from priests ordained by Williamson for that same reason! You never petitioned Williamson to get himself "fixed" prior to another nameless faceless "witness" who claims it was only Dolan (!) So if "grapevine" messages are highly reliable, then Williamson should be held dubious as well! Dolan also produced a witness saying he WAS ordained with two hands! So if the grapevine is right you were using it selectively. If wrong, they are both valid. In either case you're wrong and perpetuate calumny

    8. It was at first assumed by many (but not us) that the entire '76 class had been ordained with one hand. ur focus has always been on "One Hand.")
      However, we recently reported a more detailed account volunteered by another eyewitness. He said Dannie was the only one. He also said that the abp. was counseled not to re-ordain him because the action could adversely affect the abp.'s reputation in those early days.

    9. I'm still awaiting (a) your exact citation and (b) the name of the witness.

      Of course you will never name (b) because he doesn't exist! You never name anyone! Tell us the name of a good Traditionalist Chapel and priest we can attend and verify (phone number address etc)

    10. Here's what I think: find a priest who lives what the Catholic church has taught for hundreds of years and who is a true representative of Christ.

      I can't see any of these men who are spoke about here as true examples of Christ. In addition, it isn't as though these men are making little "mistakes" (After all, none of us are perfect), but these men are destroying the faith of many through their lies, intimidations, lack of knowledge, spewing their opinions as Catholic doctrine, and who knows what else (according to the SGG school scandal that many have confirmed as truth.)

      My guess is that you Anon, don't really want a good traditional chapel though. What you want is the name of anyone associated with this blog so you can report it to one of your cult leaders. That's sad that you could be so childish to think that you could get in their good graces by defending them this way. Good luck to you though, you will need luck and lots of prayers to take your blinders off and see the truth.

    11. Giving the name of a good Chapel shows approval, not any connection.
      Name some Chapel far from SGG. You attempt to turn things around in your desperate attempt to hide the fact you're nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Fr Evangelista and his Chapel aren't afraid of the SGG "terrorist organization." I'm sure you'd approve of his pre-Vatican 2 seminary training and traditional ordination. You could recommend Ave Maria Chapel, but you don't. Is this the only Chapel in the US where the SGG/CIA has no influence?

    12. Our chapel has no connection to SGG or Brooksville nor are we related to SSPX or SSPV.
      We have a bishop and we aren't on the internet.This group has multiple chapels.Hopefully in years to come,this group of priest's will be more visible.
      They're being cautious due to the celebrity clergy who will obviously try to put a stranglehold on their growth.

  5. What do you need eyewitnesses for when Dolan doesn't deny that it's true?

    1. He never admitted it! Check out the response of Fr Cekada and Bp. Dolan in October of 1990. There is a indeed a denial.

    2. Yes, he denied it to the nine in a private letter, but then years later Checkie produced a elaborate defense of one-handed orders, something unnecessary if it really didn't happen.

    3. Simply called "arguing in the alternative." Lawyers do it all the time in legal briefs.

    4. But if Danny knew had been ordained with two hands, then there would be no reason to argue in the alternative. Indeed, in his case, such a line of discourse would have been tactically damaging inasmuch as it could suggest that he acknowledged the claim of his one-handed ordination. He would have been smarter to have stuck to his two-handed assertion.

      That opens the question of why he allowed Checkie to pursue that line of defense. One possibility is that, at the time, he knew there were too many people who would contest his assertion that his ordination was not defective. As we reported, another priest recently affirmed the one-handed ordination and added that only one candidate in 1976 was so defectively ordained. Back in the '90s and 2000 there might have been many more to come forward. Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume the cult masters didn't want to risk exposure by publicly denying the one-handed claim and so sought to defend the validity of such defective orders.

    5. There is a presumption of validity on Dolan's side when he was ordained by Lefebvre. Something you think tactically disadvantageous (we don't) doesn't overcome that presumption.

    6. True. There is a presumption. But that presumption is defeated when witnesses come forward.

    7. The nameless, faceless witnesses who don't exist.

    8. That may help you and the cult masters get through the dark, long night, but they certainly do exist, and Dannie knows it.

    9. This is pretty interesting considering the fact that there are eyewitnesses who say the complete opposite, namely that all the priests there were ordained correctly with both hands.

      Your "eyewitness" is wrong. This proves it.

    10. No, it doesn't prove anything.

      A more rational explanation is that your eyewitness (F.E. ?) just didn't notice the singular defective ordination of Wee Dan when all the others were ordained correctly.

    11. Yes, he did see it. As I said, he was an eyewitness. And yes, an eyewitness to an event is proof.

    12. But he wasn't in the sanctuary as was ours. At such a distance, everything looked OK, especially since only one candidate got the two-handed treatment. And if your witness is FE, then it's all the more probable that he just didn't notice, since he was more than likely distracted by having just received the diaconate.

    13. We have two witnesses who were only a few feet away and saw two hands used. However, we are not at liberty to divulge their identities.

    14. By now, their noses must be 10 ft.long! They're lying to you.

      It doesn't make any difference, though. Dannie knows what happened.

  6. Just an FYI: I don't think anyone needs a one-handed reason to stay away from sgg. That place is full of evil. It has been exposed to only a small extent. Many have already left, and the others will leave as soon as the rest of the show is debunked.

    1. You're absolutely correct! Even if Dannie were indubitably valid, no one should assist at SGG. And, yes, there is a whole lot more to expose.

  7. Some people don't appear to know, namely: "Anonymous November 13, 2016 at 10:43 PM
    To Anonymous at 11/13/16 @ 6:18

    "His conferences are as real as the witnesses to a one handed ordination. Do you see a pattern emerging? Nameless faceless witnesses, and nameless faceless priests who have nameless chapels. Nine priests saw nothing. Yet the "charism" of the priesthood wouldn't let them sign it unless they were morally certain. Yeah. Wasn't one signatory "Bp Sinborn?" The charism of the priesthood prevents him from sinning only in that one limited area, right? Nevertheless this invented idea doesn't prevent raping children or soliciting for sex in the confessional which was proscribed under the 1917 Code. They have witnesses but not even one is willing to be named.

    "He invents phony principles, bolstered by phony witnesses, and attends phony conferences. It's all made up. The emperor has no clothes!"

    1. Sorry, but nothing's been invented. It's all fact. But feel free to deny, if you think it will comfort you.