Saturday, April 15, 2017

SAUCY DOUBTS AND FEARS

He that hath not the craft, let him shut up shop. Herbert

From time to time, we're asked whether we accept the Thục line. When we reply with something simple like, "Yes, at present, we believe the lineage/succession is valid," we always do so with some unease. Such a short answer doesn't fully express the many caveats we harbor. Inasmuch as our recommendation of multiple lineages has sparked a firestorm of e-mail inquiries, the Readers thought it time to post a more nuanced position, one that reflects their deeper concerns about the deplorable condition of line today.

Our misgivings are almost entirely practical.  As you know, PL's hobby horse is not episcopology or armchair diagnoses of the mental state of consecrators. We leave all that to others with more industry or free time than we possess: the Readers' chief aim has ever been to expose the deficits of the Tradistani cult masters. Period.

Nevertheless, that doesn't mean we altogether ignore the question of validity of lines. Validity of holy orders is at the very heart of traditionalism and indeed has always been a concern to the Church. No one wants to adore mere bread, as the Skipper's people sacrilegiously did. So, for what it's worth to our readership, here's where PL stands right now on the question:
Although we continue to affirm in general the validity of many Thục "bishops" (at least until the other shoe drops), we nevertheless do hold in reserve our assent to particular branches of the line. Our caution stems not so much from sacramental theology as from the horror stories of actual ordinations or consecrations. Deficient training, carelessness, ignorance, and downright goofiness are the ingredients for a deadly cocktail of doubtful orders conferred by men who themselves may be validly consecrated "bishops."*
This is the hidden scandal of contemporary Sedelandia.  As a result, no one can have confidence in the assertion that a given line is unqualifiedly valid, seeing that "clergy" from one of the successors in that line may be invalid owing to an ordaining "bishop's" incompetence (or worse, his own invalidity). In other words, the question is not whether the Thục line is valid, but whether you can trust the orders conferred by a specific "bishop" in that line.

But let's lay aside all these abstract convolutions and give you a few concrete examples.

● At one video-recorded ceremony, the knuckle-headed  consecrator was holding the Pontificale in one hand so he was physically unable to impose both hands. (Only heaven knows why the dopey consecrandus didn't recognize the defect at the time! Cluelessness, probably. Most of these guys would be grossly unprepared to be a busboy.)

● Another thoughtless "bishop" either didn't have a Pontificale or didn't want to use the one he possessed, so he had someone retype the rite of priestly ordination, thus inviting the intrusion of textual errors on the part of a transcriber who knew no Latin.

● Yet another flake admitted he was unaware the Pontificale had a separate text in the Appendix for conferring orders on one candidate (all references to the ordinand in the grammatical singular). He used the section where all the references are in the plural. That would be dangerous even if he knew Latin.

● In preparing for an "ordination," an MC, pressed for time, copied a well-known rubrician's Latin instructions and distributed them to the other ministers, including the yo-yo ordaining "bishop." His comment was, "Now let's have this in English so we know what's going on."

● At an "ordination" to the priesthood, the dippy "bishop," despite the immediate availability of a genuine printed Pontificale, chose to use a photocopy of the rite, which had been greatly enlarged for ease of reading. However, the not-too-swift  "priest" who photocopied the materials hadn't noticed that, during the image-enlarging process, a paragraph had dropped out. Only the vigilance of the lay MC assured the text's recitation at the ordination; the air-head "bishop" hadn't noticed anything was missing.

 ● At many ceremonies, viewers report dazed "bishops" repeatedly stumbling over the Latin words of the Pontificale, often having to re-read them or crudely garbling them. Just look on YouTube and you'll see for yourself how they struggle with fluency, pronouncing each word slowly, hesitantly, and un-rhythmically, like an adult illiterate who's still learning the alphabet. It's clear they're just decoding letters without understanding a thing they recite.

● One "ordination" was so hopelessly disorganized that some witnesses went away unsure the sacrament had been confected.

● A certain ding-a-ling "bishop" has been known to "ordain" entirely in the vernacular.

● Another "bishop" didn't own a copy of the Pontificale for a number of years after his "consecration," and the moron has never acquired a complete set of vestments for basic pontifical ceremonies.

●Some Latin-language certificates of ordination are so desperately ungrammatical that they threaten the presumption of a valid ordination.** 

You see, therefore, even if each of these men had been consecrated by a valid, knowledgeable, and conscientious member of the Thục line, that's no guarantee they'll subsequently perform rites with the same scrupulous care. Moreover, their abject incompetence in Latin leads us to believe that many of these clowns have no idea about what they're doing, unless they've got a Latin-literate MC. (Most lay MC's, however, are not, despite their admirable ceremonial expertise.) Often, it's obvious the "bishops" understand neither the rubrics of the Pontificale nor the explanation of the ceremonies by recognized Latin ecclesiastical authors.

It would not be an exaggeration to affirm that many orders conferred today, both sacerdotal and episcopal, are highly doubtful, if not baldly invalid. Hence, our hedging. At present, we'd be willing, if pressed, to aver that Carmona and, with greater internal confidence, des Lauriers were validly consecrated, yet we cannot affirm unreservedly the validity of the many, many men in the sub-lines coming afterward. The validity of some second generation "bishops" like Robert Fidelis McKenna is probably assured, but third-generation successors are much less certain to varying degrees. Of many in the fourth generation and beyond, we have positive doubt. None of us would ever set foot in their chapels, not even to get out of the sun or a blizzard.***

In hopes of putting his agitated mind to rest, the conscientious layman will naturally ask a twofold question:
(a) How can I determine whether the "bishop" who consecrated my "priest" is valid, and (b) how can I know if the ordination of my "priest" was competently performed? 
Sad to say, but here's no way of getting a reliable answer, unless you have videos of both ceremonies. But even video records won't solve the problem. For instance, you might have footage of a correctly executed priestly ordination, but the ordaining "bishop" might be doubtful or invalid.**** Alternatively, you might view a correctly conferred episcopal consecration, but if the guy who was consecrated can't understand Latin well or is careless, he may later botch the ordinations/consecrations he performs. Lamentably, in most cases, there is no video record, and usually no reliable documentary attestation. 

The only safe approach is to stay away from the "bishop"-led cults. Find independent traditional priests trained by the SSPX or Novus Ordo clergy who've been re-ordained by "bishops" with multiple lineages (Duarte Costa, Thục, Eastern rite, etc.). They're not as hard to find as you might think. Those who assist at SGG or the Swampland have viable options virtually in the backyard.


YOU NEVER HAVE TO BE STUCK IN A CULT CHAPEL. GET OUT TODAY!

* It goes without saying there is also a deeper, more frightening question involved, one which PL cannot answer: "Is the episcopal character itself sufficient for valid administration of Orders, or is some licentia ordinis exsequendi, that is, authorization to use episcopal powers, implicitly or explicitly required?" (B. Leeming,  S.J., Principles of Sacramental Theology [1956], p. 521). If the answer is yes, then very few clergy in TradWorld  — if any — are valid.

** One well-known sede's Testimonium Ordinationis not only lawlessly reads rite dimisso, but also prints a nominative (!) as the subject of the infinitive contulisse in indirect discourse. Adding insult to injury, he spells the ordinand's Latin Christian name using the nominative instead of the dative. In other words, the illicit phrase didn't give him the slightest clue as to the right case for the name. Now that's real dumb.

*** Our remarks here do not apply to our doubts about Dubious Dan. They're based on the 1990 letter from the nine priests regarding his one-handed ordination (click here). As you know, Tony Baloney's defense of one-handed orders has been completely demolished (click here). To our knowledge, Dannie has yet to beg Big Don to "ordain" and "consecrate" him sub conditione. Therefore, the validity of every man he's ordained in major orders is suspect.

**** For instance, from personal observation, one of the Readers can affirm that Dannie's ceremonies are performed accurately. Many years ago, our colleague purposefully attended an "ordination" to see whether Dannie knew enough to use the text with everything in the singular. (He knew way back then Deficit Dan was no Latinist and thus probably not able to think on the fly and change the plurals to singulars.) It turned out that all words were indeed in the correct grammatical number for the "ordination" of one individual. However, Dannie's doubtful status renders the man's orders doubtful despite the competent execution of the rite. (As an act of charity, a few years ago we sent one of Dannie's creatures, a Mexican national, a copy of the Spanish translation of our monograph "The Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand." We urged him to seek conditional orders. We don't know what he did. For the health of the souls he serves in Mexico, we hope he heeded our plea. It's always possible, though,  that the loud-mouthed Chihuahua King of Juárez advised him against prudent action.)

100 comments:

  1. P.L. Thank you, this is long overdue.

    This is an excellent critique of what we are dealing with in the world of LIES, especially from those who claim to bear THE TRUTH.

    I am a very simple person, and all I know is to make A SACRAMENT VALID there are three necessary ingredients, so to speak, and they are: Matter, Form and Intention. I have no problem with the obvious two, Matter and Form, however, the Intention is what makes me scared stiff with these wanna be's.

    As you say, Latin is a major ingredient especially if you are selling yourself as a Traddie Priest. I listen carefully for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel, and if the reading doesn't flow, I have big doubts, that make me suspect the credentials of the priest.

    Then comes the next step I dread.

    Investigation.

    Intentions I cannot see, but the outward signs I can.

    Considering we have no institution to protect us from erring priests anymore, I am rendered to apply my own vetting system which is quite simple. I look for a priest with Intelligence and Humility.
    Once I find that combo, and I have, I steer clear of all else, because it is a rare commodity today.

    In other words I avoid the near occasion of sin through: Prideful Power Players, Pompous Pulpit Pounders, Money Changers, Glaring Greed, and last but not least, Empire Builders.

    If I wanted anyone of these so called attributes of these soul snatchers, I would be back with Rome.


    So, I do admit based on all the above hidden agendas of the various prospects out there in the Swamps, that I have been reduced to I follow a very primitive formula to protect myself and those I guide.

    That is:"When in doubt, leave it/them out."



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very wise words that every traditional Catholic should bear in mind at all times, especially your strategy of listening carefully to the recitation of the Epistle and Gospel. (That's our litmus test, too.)

      The trad "clergy's" fluency deficit in reading Latin aloud is a sign of deeply ingrained laziness, as well as of malformation. Some of these men could improve in two ways: either study Latin seriously everyday to make up for what they missed in the "seminary" or, if that's beyond their capabilities, then simply practice reading the texts before Mass.

      The latter technique mimics the therapeutic measures taken to help children with reading disabilities. Repeated oral reading of texts under timed conditions is one very easy remedy for fluency difficulties, which many teachers employ in the classroom. However, a large proportion of trad "clergy" don't have the motivation. They're content to bumble along, and their contempt for the laity means they don't have to improve.

      When the laity notice their "priest" or "bishop" struggling with the Latin of the Missal or Pontificale, they should, in charity and in justice, say something immediately. Reading experts tell us that once serious problems develop, they can be resistant to remediation. Granted, the cult masters who run the "seminaries" should have intervened years ago. But since they didn't or wouldn't, it's up to laymen to intervene.

      There's nothing more disedifying and frightening than to listen to a botched recitation of liturgical books. We viewed two recent YouTube videos of ordination to the priesthood and to the subdiaconate and were shocked at the performance — it bordered on the dyslexic. Clearly the man had no idea of what the words he was so effortfully reciting meant, and it was obvious he hadn't practiced reciting the text.

      Our recommendation above to step up and say something is really useless, for the Tradistanis are highly unlikely to take the intervention to heart. (They'll probably kick you out if you speak up.) The best recourse is to heed Anon 4:18's warning and get out immediately: if your "priest" or "bishop" makes word substitutions, has a labored oral reading rate, ignores punctuation, chops or segments sounds, reads without expression, etc., he's got a lot more going against him than mere reading incompetence.

      Time to look elsewhere because it won't get any better.

      Delete
    2. I don't think humility exists with these men, especially Sanborn. He's very pompous. One hears over and over again how his place is the only place you can get to Heaven. Who is so prideful that they think they are the only path to Heaven?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous April 16, 2017 at 5:17 PM
      Stated:

      " I don't think humility exists with these men..."

      Perhaps not with the men that you are looking among, like Sanborn. If I have heard this once, I have heard it from every cult head hunter out there, that pounds their pulpits threatening there is "no salvation outside of" their respective forts.

      " My Kingdom has many mansions", says the Lord God. So I would not fear what anyone of these self appointed gate keepers of heaven has to say. I would continue to follow what Christ says like: "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find...."

      I was fortunate enough to find such a priest. His intelligence is only surpassed by his sincere humility. I pray every day that God spare him to us.

      Keep the Faith and keep knocking, it will be opened to you.

      Delete
  2. Does he say this himself or do his people? I thought the Lord Jesus Christ said that any who did the will of His Father were His Sister, Mother and Brother - perhaps the Lord was wrong. Perhaps it was the disciples of John the Baptist: "Art thou the Christ or do we look for another ?" In which case the "other" has finally arrived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cult masters are certainly the "other."

      Delete
  3. Hi PL

    I attend a chapel where the priest was ordained by a Costa bishop. A few years ago some one told me that the cult masters say that line is invalid. Do you know why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean cmri, it's because Dolan and Sanborn see them as competition. They question, or have in the past, SSPV, independent priests, and CMRI. Privately, Sanborn even tells people that they cannot go to the CMRI masses. He and his seminary graduates have even told people not to go to many independent priests or will tell you they've done the research for you.

      The CMRI approach to things are different than Sanborn's Fire and brimstone, and he feels threatened that people will see his approach is nothing more than a protestant type attempt to make people scared of hell so that they will follow him unconditionally out of fear (and do anything for him, including giving large sums of money).

      Did the cult masters actually say it's because of the line or are they just claiming they are invalid?

      Delete
    2. The irony of this approach is that it is redolent of total cultism - what Tony Baloney once called "Follow me or die". It is exactly what Francis Schuckardt did in the early days of CMRI assure the fold he was the "only Catholic Bishop we know of" - therefore the only source of grace. Don, Tony, Dan and Marco Polo are doing exactly the same. At a priest meeting of CMRI years ago one of Marco's boys told him to his face: "You're more Schuckardt than Schuckardt." The usually restrained Marco blew his stack and lit into the priest big time while the other cowards sat around and allowed it to happen.

      Frankly, Pivvy you are just that and all of them are tin-pot tyrants who lord it over their sheeple week after week.

      Delete
    3. Anon Apr 17 6: 31 AM

      Did you mean the Duarte Costa line, and are you referring the 2015 letter sent by a Florida cult lay woman condemning the "schismatic Brazilians"?

      If you do, then we suppose the cult masters are worried about the competition. You can ignore the slanders. The D-C "bishops" are said to belong to the oldest episcopal lineage in the Roman Catholic Church — the d'Estouteville line. It's the most numerous non-Rebiban line (Bp. Kelley's line). In the d'Estouteville line there are some 8 or 9 popes (if we recall correctly, but we'd need to check to be certain).

      BTW, the Thục line, as we understand it, belongs neither to the Rebiba nor to the d'Estouteville succession: it is Chaldean, stretching back to Patriarch Youhanan VII Hormez, who was consecrated in 1776.

      Delete
    4. Reader
      No, it was not against cmri. Like you said, it was the Daurte Costra line. sorry for the wrong name. A woman wrote the board "Holy Orders conferred by a canonically unfit bishop -one who as among the Brazilian sciskmatics lacked the requisite seminary education - enjoy no presumption of validity."

      Delete
    5. We've seen that letter. Ignore it. She was a dupe of the cult masters who were running scared of the competition.

      Delete
    6. Historically there were cases of mere boys receiving ordination - you can hardly claim a seminary education for them - but their ordinations would be as valid as infant Baptism. They would enjoy the presumption of validity.

      Delete
    7. You know that, and we know that, and probably the cult masters know it. That's why they get ignorant lay people like the woman mentioned to spread such misrepresentations among the laity. If someone objects, they can always blame it on someone else. Meanwhile, they know the damage has been done.

      Delete
    8. The Thuc line (which I hold to be valid) stems from cardinal Rebiba.

      Delete
  4. I will obey the scriptures and attend traditional chapels
    If these men are doing things wrong,its not my fault.
    I'm doing what the Lord commamded.
    I don't these clerics you all talk about but I will say they seem to grasp Latin and basic ceremony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't grasp the basics of virtue and the spiritual life - do they ? The Lord commanded: "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves." Matthew 10:16. If you're willing to be fleeced by frauds - what price "Latin and ceremony"?

      Delete
    2. Anon Apr 17 10:40 AM

      There's quite a big difference between (1) having enough Latin to get the general idea of what's going on in a rite provided you consciously translate the text and (2) knowing ecclesiastical Latin well enough that, as you read it aloud, you understand every word and construction virtually without having to think.

      As we listen to the great majority of these "priests" and "bishops," we notice, even among those who can read a paragraph out loud without tripping over every third or fourth word, the guy really doesn't get the sense of the text.

      How can we tell? Simple. The phraseology and rhythm are all wrong. He's just decoding sounds. There's no understanding taking place. He's too busy trying not to stammer or miscue the words on the page. Another dead giveaway occurs when these characters cite a Latin paragraph from the rubrics or one of the authors during a practice session. They invariably read the Latin words to the group rather than translate on the fly. That's a sure indication that they've enough Latin to get the gist but aren't capable of rendering the passage word for word.

      These sedes make a lot of noise about the Latin Mass etc. but they do very little to truly master the Church's language.

      We're sorry, but we know that Holy Writ didn't command us to treat fakes like the real thing.

      Delete
  5. "If these men are doing things wrong,its not my fault."

    If you contribute to their support - you are by definition an "enabler" - if "doing wrong" = "commission of sin" then yes you co-operate in sin. It IS your fault.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When I get my car repaired, I take it to a reputable certified, good mechanic. I also ask friends about their experience with the repairs. This is for my car.
    When I look for a doctor, my research is far more intense. And when I buy an appliance I research the Consumers Guide.


    So somehow having a somewhat working knowledge of Latin, coupled with an OK education, does not make me feel any too secure in accepting, "it's not my fault" as a valid excuse.
    I would never want to trust my immortal soul with an OK priest who is content being just OK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very apt analogy. Let us add that these men do not have an "OK education." Tradistani "seminaries" are a scandal: no regulation, a "teaching" staff what doesn't possess advanced degrees, arbitrary admissions, little or no time to study— you name it. Public high schools have better standards.

      Delete
    2. Reader, all the more reason for the existence of this blog. "Knowledge is Power", and "Ignorance is Bliss".
      The question is: what side of the eternal equation do we want to be on, when we are warned that, "hell is paved by those of good intentions"?

      I am going with one of the seven gifts from the Holy Ghost, Knowledge. Why? Because then I can use my Free Will to be able to surrender it to GOD's, and not be
      deceived into that of the Beast's.

      " ...and lead us not into temptation, but deliver from evil."

      Caution: The devil is always in the detains.

      Delete
    3. You've got it right.

      With all that we know now about the SW Ohio-B'ville cult, there's no excuse for continuing to support it. The 2009 $GG $chool $candal brought everything out in the open, so no one of good conscience can plead ignorance. If people remain associated with the cult and continue to enable the leaders, they condemn themselves.

      Delete
    4. Why don't you all get ordained and show others the right way to live and worship?
      You all could save Catholicism instead of writing for blogs.

      Delete
  7. I am curious as too where all these alternatives are in the Cincinnati area. As far as I know, there is SSPV (bishop Mendez who supposedly mispronounced some word wrong at Kelly's consecration), SGG (one hand), Markus Ramolla's operation (isn't he through the Slupski line?), and Fr. Hall's Infant of Prague chapel (Petko, a Slupski line, correct?). That concludes all the sedes. Are there more?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Realize that, in our minds, there are options other than sedes. The Cinci area has SSPX and FSSP chapels. As for Infant of Prague, we think the "clergy" possess lines in addition to the tarnished Slupski-Thục branch. The Ramster was ordained a priest by "One-Hand Dan" and was "consecrated" by a Slupski "bishop." We don't know for certain, but we heard from one of his former colleagues that he did not seek conditional priestly orders at the time of his "consecration." Accordingly, we don't consider him a safe option no matter who "consecrated" him. If he can show proof of re-ordination to the priesthood, then we'll amend our opinion to "caution" status.

      As for the mispronunciation, we thought that referred to an ordination of one of IC's "priests," not to Kelly's consecration. Wasn't the dust-up over K about clandestinity and something about K's book printing the plural version of the rite, not the singular?

      But then, we don't really follow the SSPV. Besides, on principle we wouldn't believe anything coming out of the cult masters' mouths. All we know is that years ago the sedes were all hounding Méndez for a miter, but K beat 'em to the punch.

      We bet the kingpins are still bitter over K's getting that lineage: Spellman-Pacelli (P XII)-Benedict XV-Pius X-...Clement XIII-Benedict XIV-...Rebiba. No wonder they caused all that trouble: they spent years trashing the Thục line but ended up doing a 180 when they couldn't get what they really wanted. They still haven't lived down "Two Bishops in Every Garage."

      Since then the situation has gotten worse by a hundredfold. There are now "bishops" everywhere. (As we once observed, there're more "bishops" than maggots on week-old road kill.) What's worse is that many of these men have multiple lineages. Thus, they're actually a safer alternative since there are still those who seriously doubt the validity of the Thục line. It's quite possible that in the near future, the controversy will be renewed with the surfacing of new allegations. We hear, BTW, that someone's now working on the verification of allegations that have not yet appeared in print. But since that's not in PL's. wheelhouse, we'll continue to affirm the validity of the line in general while suspecting the validity of some of its branches, as we explained in our post.

      Delete
    2. Thuc line is valid as the 16 word formula for consecrating bishops & the minimal formula for ordaining priests and deacons is rather simple.
      Have you Shabbos Goys at the FSSP & ICKSP read the "new rite of diaconate" post June 1968?
      Its EVEN MORE DOUBTFUL than the new dubious "rites of ordination and consecration"
      Fr.Hall was ordained by Bishop Petko.
      You all rant & rave about how the FSSP is catholic royalty.Bishop Petko was doubtfully ordained in the FSSP,then left that Talmudic scam and embraced Catholicism.
      You all also rant about priests before June 1968 being educated smart etc..
      Bishop Slupski was ordained in 1961 yet you all trash him as an "idiot" "doubtful" etc..
      So right there are 2 contradictions.
      Lastly,have you all personally observed or assisted as Laity during a ordination or consecration at Bishop Slupski's chapel?
      Or is it the weekly version of "he said/she said"?

      Delete
    3. Well, as we've stipulated, we accept the validity of Thục line in theory, unless new evidence is published. It's the several branches of that line that concern us.

      Delete
    4. Thank you for your comment, 10:52.

      Sadly, this entire blog is a Talmudic scam.

      Delete
    5. Gordon Bennett (or in this case Leonard Gordon) seems obsessed with Judaism - what a freaky life you live!

      Delete
    6. 5:22 is indeed a freak-O, Anon.

      All we can say to this bigot is to quote from our personal copy of the Talmud:

      If one man says to thee, "Thou art a donkey," pay no heed. If two speak thus, purchase a saddle.

      Happy trails, 5:22!

      Delete
    7. The word "bigot" is used by liberals and their teachers, the Jews, to insult anyone who doesn't agree with their liberalism.

      It's telling that that word is in your vocabulary and that you use it against people who criticize the people of your tribe.

      Delete
    8. Oh no I'm a bigot"!
      I will give myself 25 lashes right away.
      I will repeat "bad goy bad goy bad goy" as I lash myself!
      Thank you for showing my place almighty shabbos goy superior!!

      Delete
  8. There is Fr. Jenkins who was once associated with Bp. Kelly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In spite of the rift between the two, we believe he's still affiliated with the SSPV. If someone knows differently, please comment.

      As we've said before, the SSPV's not in our bailiwick so we don't keep up with all the happenings.

      Delete
    2. Your are right Reader. However, the Kelly Jenkins affiliation is in name only. That friendship is as dead as Judas is to Christ.
      Again you are right. Bp. Kelly wanted to get consecrated a Bp. because Bp. Mendez was getting on in years, and very forgetful with the words of ordination at the last round of Holy Orders.

      Back then it was a TRILOGY of the IRISH, (Dolan, Kelly, Sanborn), fighting for the Crown of Power.
      Now it is just a guessing game as to what idiot Dons The DUNCE CAP.

      Forgive me, for that is how cynical I have become over all these years of "Fakes'.
      That is why I say intelligence is a very important asset, only if it is surpassed by humility.
      This is an excellent combo for ones salvation, especially if you are a priest.

      Delete
    3. We have found very little intelligence or humility in Tradistan.

      Delete
    4. He said/she said and "take my word for it,this is what we were told"
      National Enquirer for the gullible Goyim,week after week.

      Delete
    5. The author of this blog tells us to take his word for it that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand, and every other deacon in that ceremony was ordained correctly.

      Not to mention just about everything else on here is "take my word for this" reporting.

      Delete
    6. On the contrary, I find this blog to be an "in my experience with these groups, but do the research yourself" kind of thing. One shouldn't follow a collar as the truth or this blog, but by doing your own research and determining what facts are the truth.

      Delete
    7. It's a matter of fact that Dan was ordained with only one hand - there were eye-witnesses. Why else did Tony Baloney write his screed defending one handed ordinations? Answer because the His Prissiness needs others to do his laundry for him - in rose scented water no less! Yes his altar linens and albs used to be washed in rose water.

      Delete
    8. "It's a matter of fact that Dan was ordained with only one hand - there were eye-witnesses."

      There are no eye-witnesses to this supposed event. If there were, they would have been plastered all over this blog long ago. The fact that this author cannot provide a single photograph of the event, or the name of anyone who saw it, is proof sufficient that they don't exist.

      The whole thing is about as credible as a story about a UFO abduction. At least in those cases you have people come forward with blurry photographs of it, and witnesses who come forward publicly and make claims about what they saw. We don't have even that much here.

      Don't believe everything you read on the internet. That whole thing is a hoax.

      By the way, before you cite the article of Fr. Cekada as proof that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand, bear in mind that he wrote it to silence people like the author of this blog who make up lies like this to defame people.

      Delete
  9. Who are these dubious bishops and priests you mention?
    You're going to throw up all type of insanity and not name these men?
    You can have the FSSP & ICKSP,they submit to the Jewish idolatrous blasphemous Vatican 2 heresies and the Council of Trent violations.
    The *new sacraments* are dubious at best.We are taught to stay away from doubtful sacraments.
    Name these men and if you personally witnessed these travesties so we can avoid doubtful sacraments!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where have you been? They're named all over this blog. Just read.

      Delete
    2. Name the specific ones in this article.
      Last names will do,its no problem.

      Delete
    3. Don't ask us to steal our own thunder!

      We've got future posts along those lines as we collect more and more information. If we unmask 'em today, we'll spoil all the fun — and lose all the hard work we've already invested.

      For now, just know that at least three names are well known and have been mentioned here; others are not so familiar to most trads.

      In the meantime, you can safely avoid all "clergy" referenced in this blog, especially "One-Hand" and anyone he's "ordained." With all the others, do your homework, and demand to see videos of their "consecrations/ordinations." We'll help anyone who needs expert advice.

      Delete
    4. "Where have you been? They're named all over this blog."

      Link, please?

      Delete
  10. And what qualifies you as an "expert?" Doctorate in Sacred Theology? Canon lawyer? These accounts are just like the alleged "one handed ordination" of Dolan. There are "witnesses" none of whom you can name. A letter from nine priests who weren't there and claim no witnesses. Your "evidence" and BS will be identical. Unnamed "witnesss"---but "everybody knows it happened" so names don't matter. The bishops in question "know" it happened and that's all that matters, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, and blah blah blah.

    Give you calumny a break.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not really understanding the Reader's point. While I am a non-dogmatic sede, that is I think it is the most likely explanation but not one we can be sure about, I am a sede and left the "indult" crowd specifically because I doubt most of them are really priests. Some of them are, the ones ordained by Lefebvre for example, but the rest I just have too much doubt to go back no matter how disappointing sede clergy can be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the fundamentum of your doubt? The claim that the new ordinal doesn't confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders? They used to say the priests were invalid because "ut" was missing in the form. Check out the Leonine and Gregorian sacramentaries - same prayer and no "ut" - follow the logic if the absence of "ut" invalidates priestly ordination there have been no priests since the early centuries of the Church. That, surely is preposterous.

      Regarding the "governing spirit" for consecration of bishops Tony Baloney tells us this does not signify the "Holy Spirit" yet the expression "governing spirit" occurs in the Septuagint version of Psalm 50 and a footnote in one version I have says this is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit. Cheeseball needs further research to convince me his never ending stupidities are correct. It's just a reinforcement mechanism to keep the culties off balance and assured the truth resides in Tradistan.

      These half-baked fraudsters make it all up as they go along. They operated until now on the principle that they have the books and can read Latin but the internet makes it possible for you to do your own research and prove these intellectual pygmies wrong.

      The diaconate form (contrary to the Judaic Obsessed blithering rubbish) was not altered.

      Delete
    2. Anon Apr 18 6:07 PM,

      We entirely understand and sympathize with your dilemma. And we grant the sedes have a thesis that, to a degree, saves the appearances for the current crisis.

      The problem for us, which underlies the post, is that today the validity of many sedes is as compromised as that of the N.O. owing to incompetence and ignorance. The first generation of Thucite bishops may well have been valid, but later generations cannot be so affirmed without serious due diligence. (Especially "One-Hand Dan.") In other words, nowadays they really can't offer sufficient assurances to us so that we could ignore our disappointment in their behavior. In fact. their behavior is an argument in favor of their lacking the charism of orders.

      Delete
  12. What qualifies Cheeseball as a "Professor of Canon Law"? He once told me he had never studied it until he started teaching it and even after he had been teaching it for years he had never heard of the principle of "intrinsic cessation of law" - a seminarian had to explain it to him and right afterwards he wrote a piece about it and made a colossal blunder at the end where he re-evoked epiky as another principle under which Tradistani clergy may operate. The blunder is that both of these principles are mutually exclusive as a REAL canonist would tell you. It's not a case of both...and... but one of either...or... The nitwit probably still doesn't realize it.

    Then we have Tradzilla the vaunted "Professor" of Sacred Scripture who in a review of the Gibson movie "Passion of the Christ" said the words of Our Lord in the way of the Cross "Behold I make all things new!" were fitting but not Scriptural. They're not in the Gospels but they are recorded in the Apocalypse. The review disappeared almost as quickly as it appeared. Clownish theology from a clown of a "Rector". As for Dan... he leaves it to Tony. Marco didn't even graduate a real high school so there's no question he hasn't a degree in anything - the Jello-bish straight out of high school - nothing much there. It's not calumny - it's the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well observed. Allow us to note another "howler" related to the Gibson flick.

      In his March 2004 review of "The Passion of the Christ," Tradzilla wrote:

      ...at the film's Last Supper, the text should have been, 'This is the chalice of My Blood which (chalice) will be poured out."

      We don't know whether he had in mind the text of Luke or that of the Roman Canon, but the relative "which" cannot be taken with the antecedent "chalice," as the rector thinks with his parenthetical "learned clarification." The Latin word for "pour out," and the New Testament Greek one behind it, are not applicable to a solid artifact such as a chalice. They to mean to "pour out" a liquid, not to "empty" a vessel. All doubt vanishes when we consult the Synoptic parallel in Matthew-Mark, where the only possible antecedent in the Latin and the Greek is blood, not "chalice" as the Donster wrongly noted.

      These guys are not for real. It's all play acting.

      Delete
    2. Whilst in this instance you are quite correct here is a partial entry from Dr. Spiros Zodhiates' The Complete Word Study Dictionary - look for the part about Metonymy (which is not applicable here):

      G1632
      ἐκχέω
      ekchéō and ἐκχύνω
      ekchúnō; fut. ekcheṓ, fut. pass. ekchuthḗsomai, aor. exéchea (Joh_2:15), aor. pass. exechúthēn, perf. pass. ekkéchumai, from ek (G1537), out, and chéō (n.f., see epichéō [G2022]), to pour. To pour out.
      (I) Particularly in Mat_9:17; Mar_2:22, "the wine is poured out" (a.t.) means spilled; Luk_5:37; Joh_2:15, "he poured out the money" (a.t.) means he scattered it upon the ground; Act_1:18, "his bowels gushed out." See Sept.: Exo_4:9; Lev_4:12; Lev_14:41; Jdg_6:20; 2Sa_20:10. In the phrase haíma ([G129], blood) ekchéō (to pour out) means to shed blood and bring about death through the shedding of blood (Act_22:20; Rom_3:15; Rev_16:6). In Mat_23:35; Luk_11:50 the pres. part. ekchunómenon is used, indicating not a continuous pouring out, but that the pouring was before the foundation of the world, planned and destined to be so. Spoken of the blood of Christ (a pregnant theological metaphor for His death) shed or poured out as a sacrifice for sin (Mat_26:28; Mar_14:24; Luk_22:20 [cf. Gen_9:6; Deu_19:10; 1Sa_25:31; 2Ki_21:16; Psa_79:10]). By metonymy, the container for the contents (Rev_16:1-4, Rev_16:8, Rev_16:10, Rev_16:12, Rev_16:17).

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the comment. We, too, are grateful users of Zodhiates' dictionary as well as his Hb-Gk Key Word Study. Marvelous scholarship.His conversion to Protestantism probably renders him anathema to the sede troglodytes so they refuse to consult his works.

      Delete
    4. I feel sure they have never even heard of him. There is nothing (that I know of) in the Catholic domain that is as useful for understanding the Greek (or Hebrew/Aramaic).

      I'm glad you pointed out that the Scriptures have original languages some seem to think the Vulgate is the original but St. Jerome had access to a few manuscripts and St. Augustine got into a fight over the manuscripts that Jerome was using. Then the Douay-Rheims is a translation of a translation.

      Fortunately Pius XII encouraged better Biblical study but then the Council happened and the liberal Protestantism of 1880s Germany finally washed over the Church in Neo-Modernism.

      Oddly Evangelicals (if you can weed out their theological biases) have a better handle on hermeneutics than most Catholic scholars I find.

      Tradzilla is still struggling with Cornelius A Lapide (probably just because it's in Latin) which is fine if you are able to factor in 3 centuries of further biblical discoveries which were not known at that time.

      Over in Mater Dei, however, all of the above would be met with a grunt and a "Yer wot now ?"

      Delete
    5. We have to agree with you, though we will say that we have found Zorell's Lexicon Græcum Novi Testamenti helpful for its wealth of Latin synonyms. However, desp[te being Catholics, we admire the Protestants as great Grecians, and we have all their books. They really know that language. A pity our traddie "priests" don't know Latin as deeply.

      Delete
    6. Yes I have almost everyone as well but I was unfamiliar with Zorell - thanks for the tip!

      Delete
  13. Anonymous April 18, 2017 at 5:25 PM

    Mistakenly declared:


    "...Not to mention just about everything else on here is "take my word for this" reporting"

    Obviously you are not familiar with the protocol of this blog. Nothing is stated as fact by the staff of P. L. or the Reader without researched documentation. So when you see P. L. or The Reader write something know it has been researched, with links provided with documentation for anyone to click on.

    The P.L. Staff prides itself on letting other people opine and state their respective experiences without demanding them to, "prove it".
    Most people are just trying to seek information, and share whatever they have to help others.
    Yes, there are those who try to instigate trouble, but this excellent staff so far has been able to sift through the sincere and oust the sinister.

    So please go back through some older blogs and see for yourself how careful P. L. is NOT to write something they cannot substantiate. They even go so far as to give the devil his due when he is right on a particular issue.

    This is not CNN. P.L. is a Catholic Organization just trying to tell the truth to protect the innocent.

    There is no crime in telling the truth, just so long as you do not bear FALSE Witness, like most of Traddie Ville.


    This blog only reflects some of the views of the people. There are a plethora of emails with all kinds of information that inundate P.L. and all of it must be researched.

    Then there are the sad stories that can never be printed, because the people are too frightened to say anything for fear of reprisals against their children.


    Bear in mind you always have FREE WILL not to log in, if it bothers your conscience.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We couldn't have made our case any better. Thanks for your careful reading of the blog and your insight into our practice.

      As you observe, we have so much more material that we cannot post because it would subject our correspondents and/or their families to the vengeance of the cult masters. Indeed, we often withhold reports that have been confirmed by other parties who have given us permission to post because we fear the cult masters will single out the others who did not want the information made public. And as you note, the greatest fear is for the children, who will be shunned by their peers or bullied by cult thugs.

      Tradistan is a very scary place.

      N.B. For those out there who say we posted the above message @ 9:07, we assure you no one at PL did.

      Delete
  14. These are the type of CONS that PREY upon the innocent, and then they PRAY that the innocent do not wake up to the CON.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfectly expressed! Maybe the victims will wake up.

      Delete
  15. You will have the Second Coming before these fixtures at SGG wake up.
    Those that remain there now, are no longer victims. They are the "Brain Dead" that choose to remain that way. The only genuine victims there now are their children.

    One day they too will have to make a choice whether: " To Be, or not to be," another victim of the slim from the Swampland.

    All the incense in the world will never cover up the smoke screen of deceit that is ever present in the hearts of those Money Changers.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the whole, we agree with you.

      However, we know for certain there are at least few souls down there who are unhappy and just need the right push to get out.

      What the trigger will be is anybody's guess. But one day the straw that breaks the camel's back will be loaded and they'll leave.

      In the meanwhile, as you note, the kids will have to suffer. And maybe by the time their parents get their act together, the kids will be scarred for life. Nevertheless, damaged as they may be, if the parents get out, the wounds can begin to heal, even though their effects will never pass away.

      Delete
  16. I have been attending a Latin Mass in the Diocese for 2 yrs. and the Priest is a humble and very intelligent 89 yr old Priest. The Priest recently retired and I was going to attend at an SSPV Chapel. I called the SSPV office and spoke to a person who told me I could not receive Holy Communion at their chapel because I was attending a Latin Mass in the Diocese!! I was shocked by this statement and very upset, but realize now that I am fortunate to have not gotten involved with such a CULT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sede cults are definitely not fishers of men. A pox on them all. At least you know that your former priest was valid.

      Delete
    2. "I called the SSPV office and spoke to a person who told me I could not receive Holy Communion at their chapel because I was attending a Latin Mass in the Diocese!! I was shocked by this statement and very upset, but realize now that I am fortunate to have not gotten involved with such a CULT!"

      But you are not shocked and very upset when people receive (unholy) communion standing up and in the hand at your diocesan latin mass! You are not shocked and very upset when your humble and very intelligent 89 year old priest says the N.O. "mass" (most of the time!) -- like both masses are the same! You are not shocked and very upset when you are served up unholy communion "consecrated" at the N.O. mass at your Diocesan Latin mass (like hosts are all the same, right?)! You are not shocked and very upset when divorced and remarried, fornicators, those who are not fasting, sodomites and/or Lutherans and Anglicans, not to mention those using artificial birth control come up and receive (unholy) communion! Now that your "humble and very intelligent" 89 year old priest who went along with all the changes, never passed on the holy sacrifice of the mass to anyone, just said it for YOU un-cults like he'd say a folk mass or lgbtq mass (as an act of obedience to his sodomite bishop), is retired, you will attend the N.O. mass because there are no more priests to say the extraordinary mass rather than commit to the traditional Latin mass exclusively--along w/all the rules re: faith and morals, not to mention dress, fasting, etc. And when there are no more NO priests (just married (including same-sex) ministers or women ministers/deacons etc.) you will just go along to the Lutheran/ Anglican/Evangelical communion service--or maybe you will buy your own mass kit and give communion to yourself!

      https://www.amazon.com/Meal-That-Heals-Communion-Kit/dp/B004RDCJ32

      You are in a cult--a satanic cult that's taking you to hell, but it doesn't shock or make you very upset because you are so fortunate, humble and intelligent that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want--it's your happy meal and you deserve to have it your way (Latin, Contemporary, LGBTQ, Young-Adult, Folk, Folkalore, NeoCat)--whatever floats your little boat to hell.

      Delete
    3. Although your comment is directed at 6:17, we'd like to ask, if you don't mind, whether you're not similarly "shocked and very upset" at traddie "priests." Aren't you concerned about the reports of breaking the seal of confession? Aren't you worried about the threats to the validity of their orders? Aren't you disgusted by their cult behavior — the bullying, the shunning, the invention of new sins, etc.? Doesn't their inferior formation fill you with terror? Aren't you sickened at their double standard — one for the monied and another for the hoi polloi? Doesn't their servitude to the almighty dollar fill you with rage? Aren't you shocked that a traddie "priest" skipped the consecration at Mass? Doesn't the treatment of the children during the 2009 $GG $chool $candal move your soul to demand justice? Aren't you revolted by what Checkie wrote about the Schiavo case?

      If not, wu'd say you're in an even bigger boat right in front of the people you condemn.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous April 21, 2017 at 9:56 PM

    Argued:

    "...But you are not shocked and very upset when people receive (unholy) communion..."


    I am shocked as a Catholic that you posted this as a valid argument for somebody trying to save their soul.

    Just who are you to judge the soul of another?
    Are you God? Or do we now have a valid Pope?

    Anonymous April 21, 2017 at 6:17 PM

    Clearly Stated:

    "...The Priest recently retired and I was going to attend at an SSPV Chapel. I called the SSPV office and spoke to a person who told me I could not receive Holy Communion at their chapel because I was attending a Latin Mass in the Diocese!!..."

    He said that his priest RETIRED, and that he (WAS ATTENDING...). His objective was to ATTEND a St. Pius V chapel. That would indicate that he wanted to be a possible parishioner of St. Pius V.

    So who are you to ban him?

    Unless, you are a private corporation, with all the amenities of tax breaks, and serving self instead of GOD>




    How do you know the condition of his soul unless you judge him?
    Who are you or anybody to judge another especially, when they are seeking salvation through the Faith?

    ...Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be unto you..."
    So saith The Lord God!

    Obviously, he probably asked people about St. Pius V Chapel, then sought their location and times of the masses, then knocked on their door, (with a phone call) to clarify all his information, so he could attend.


    INSTEAD he was denied and given a bogus reason!

    So according to you, his humble priest, who at 89 is VALID, (more than I can say for most of TRADDIEVILLE's priests), offered his Masses to God, and this soul got the necessary graces from those masses, to find himself seeking St. Pius V as his new parish.

    (Personally I would like to find this priest, and talk him out of retirement.)

    WOW! "You cannot receive Holy Communion..." says a secretary, like she is St. Peter at the Golden Gate.

    Just who or what are these Maniacs who say they are working for my God, who was willing to forgive even JUDAS.

    This is what happens when you have somebody "riding shotgun" for Rome.

    They are not the Magisterium of the Church!

    AND should ever one of these ARM CHAIR GENERALS decide to become Martyrs' for the Faith by leading a Charge to storm Rome to take back what is ours, CALL ME, I WILL ENLIST.
    Until then remain silent and "serve the least of these..." as Christ said.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Was this written by Bergoglio? Who am I to judge? You can't judge a person's soul, but a person's actions. Anyone who thinks that the NO is the same as the TLM is (a) deluded or (b) clueless. They do not express the same faith. The ecclesiology is mutually exclusive. The 89 yr old priest broke his Anti-Modernist Oath by accepting the V2 heresies such as Protestant sects are a "means of salvation."
    The SSPV does not give Communion to those who think the V2 sect is the RCC. They CANNOT anymore than they could give Communion to a Lutheran, no matter how sincere. (For Lutherans who want the NO cracker, Ratzinger will be happy to oblige, he's done it as "pope.")

    Anyone who thinks these anecdotal accounts of "tradistan" by an unknown blogger with no proven theological degrees is on the same level as:
    "St" Wotyla' s Assisi Abominations of 1986 & 2002
    The systematic rape of children and the hiding of the perps
    The "celebration" of sodomy in "masses" for lgbtq perverts

    Is a pseudo-educated dolt. These are PROVEN accounts that are ubiquitous. This blog simply trots out hearsay. How many Traditionalist clergy are currently in prison for raping children? Ironically, the only know reports of such activity was reported from a credible source on Novus Ordo Watch regarding the SSPX which this blog praises!

    Need more be said?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many of non-sede priests have killed a child and impregnated a young woman, who later had an abortion? How many filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying a judgement?

      Delete
    2. (A) who is this priest?

      (B) many. Reports of NO priests raping, breaking vows and helping obtain abortions are plentiful. At least 3 NO dioceses have filed for bankruptcy after paying off victims and not wanting to pay for any more!!

      Delete
    3. "How many filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying a judgment?" Let's talk dioceses!
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

      Notice the headline: "Keeler INJURED in auto accident" The Rev. Bernard Quinn often traveled with Cardinal Keeler and Msgr. Thomas F. Smith. For years, they have traveled together, the archbishop of Baltimore and his two longtime friends, fellow priests from his former diocese in Harrisburg, Pa....the Rev. Bernard Quinn, 78, a retired priest from the Diocese of Harrisburg, was KILLED in the crash about 60 miles outside of Rome, said officials at the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Keeler is expected to be released from the hospital today"
      http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-keeler101006-story.html

      Sure many have impregnated women, but numbers swamped by the sodomites who switched child molestors and money around, kicked good men out of the seminary and lied through their teeth not to mention hiring the best lawyers to cover up child rape/molestation and avoid paying any settlements:

      "Hower subsequently complained to then-Bishop Keeler about Allen’s illicit activities on parish property. According to the lawsuit, Keeler responded to the seminarian’s concerns with retaliation. The bishop contacted the Josephinum and ordered that Hower be dismissed from the priesthood-program there and was expelled from the Diocese of Harrisburg so that he could "contemplate his commitment to God and to the Church." [to child molestors & their protectors!]

      "In 2002, after diocesan officials confronted Fr. John Allen with an allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor, the priest resigned as pastor of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque Church. He reportedly remains on paid administrative leave."

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1176673/posts

      http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/us/man-is-held-in-shooting-of-priest-he-accused-of-abuse.html

      "But there was a problem. Bishop William H. Keeler in Harrisburg told archdiocese officials that there were "too many readers of The Philadelphia Inquirer" in his diocese "to avoid serious scandal." So the cardinal, in the margin of one memo, wrote in his own handwriting, "Let's try Metuchen.""

      http://www.bigtrial.net/2012/04/philadelphia-catholic-priest-trial.html#d1AxhQGULQ4vMWKM.99

      http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/26/nation/na-cardinal26

      "Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick is taking aim at the Maryland General Assembly, charging that a legislative proposal that would require priests to report suspected child abuse would violate the sanctity of the confessional....Cardinal William H. Keeler of the Baltimore Archdiocese, said breaking the confidentiality of the confessional is "one of the more serious things a priest can do" and results in "immediate and automatic excommunication."
      "We are working with legislators through the Maryland Catholic Conference to find a resolution..."
      http://www.snapnetwork.org/legislation/McCarrick_decries_MD.htm

      The same Maryland Catholic Conference that supports funding for Planned Parenthood.

      http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-planned-parenthood-20170308-story.html

      Then there's Levada arrested for DUI:
      http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/catholic-cardinal-arrested-dui

      SF Archbishop w/his "mother":
      http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/DUI-charge-for-future-SF-archbishop-3818655.php

      Child Porn and Prostitution jaunts to Latin America & Thailand: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/09/arrested-catholic-archbishops-computer-contained-over-100000-images-of-children/

      http://www.awrsipe.com/Comments/2012-04-04-tale-of-two-bishops.htm

      https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-05/canadian-bishop-pleads-guilty-child-pornography

      But all are welcome to receive communion as long as they drop a dime in the basket to support the sodomite pedophile lifestyle and its propagation worldwide!

      Delete
    4. We see. Does that mean you'd condemn this filthy sede scumbag and the low-life "clergy" who support him?

      Delete
    5. Definitely--why jump from the frying pan into the fire?

      (A) who is this priest?
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1160060/posts

      Delete
    6. I attend a Thuc line chapel and our clergy don't refuse sacraments to any Catholic that has been baptized,made first confession and first holy Communion.(they accept any catholic)
      Don't get discouraged,not all traditional chapels are the same.

      Delete
  19. "WOW! "You cannot receive Holy Communion..." says a secretary, like she is St. Peter at the Golden Gate."

    Do you know what you're talking about? Do you know who the person spoke with or even what either party said? Anyone can walk into any N.O. Catholic Church and receive "communion." They can step up to the 6 million mass on the beach at WYD and get "communion" and be led in a dance by a sodomite porn star to get the "mass" going (Rio)! They can get communion in a disposable plastic cup. At the JP2 stadium masses hosts "consecrated" in huge plastic garbage bags were disposed of in huge plastic garbage cans. At other stadium masses and WYD masses hosts were distributed in potato chip bowls, ground into the dirt, after the mass people were anointing themselves w/consecrated wine--none of you are shocked or very upset about that.

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/08/wyd-holy-communion-from-disposable-plastic-cups-at-mega-mass/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1LLFbZJCA

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/A065_Lessons.htm

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02z_001_WYD-2008_Vennari.html

    At least not shocked or upset enough to walk out and never go back, but if you're told you cannot receive communion until you speak with a priest then you are very upset and shocked--because you are the holy of holies: you are Simon the Leper. Don't know if you have seen the latest at The Remnant, but like the Pharisees and High Priests, you too will be killing John the Baptist and the Christ if you don't wake up to how you have been corrupted by VC2.

    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3164-priest-charged-with-assault-for-defending-eucharist-during-traditional-latin-mass

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous April 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM
    Stated:

    "...At least not shocked or upset enough to walk out and never go back, but if you're told you cannot receive communion until you speak with a priest then you are very upset and shocked--because you are the holy of holies: you are Simon the Leper. Don't know if you have seen the latest at The Remnant, but like the Pharisees and High Priests, you too will be killing John the Baptist and the Christ if you don't wake up to how you have been corrupted by VC2..."

    Please note the following phrase:

    "...until you speak with a priest..."

    This was never written by: Anonymous April 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM. How do you know that person was not seeking to make arrangements to see a priest? You don't because St. Peter At the Golden Gate" only knows of one of the 7 Sacraments. Instead of asking, " Would you like to make an appointment to see a priest before you visit our chapel?" Actions? You are right, but she was wrong based on the information given , and so are you. Stop interjecting something that was never written.

    Don't worry about me falling into VC2, I was born and educated under Vatican 1 and attended Catholic schools right up to college. Then I encountered St Pius V. I could write a book on the horror stories that went on back in the good old days. You know law suits, (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) read it Mr. Judge of Actions, and then read about the nun who had to get deprogrammed by Fr. La Barr once her parents kidnapped her from Round Top.

    If actions speak louder than words, and you condone judging actions, then St Pius V priests have a whole lot to be judged upon.
    However, I still would not refuse any man the right to the Sacraments.

    Thank God I was educated in the True Faith and was able to save my children from the Gate Keepers of Power.

    So,stop playing GOD and theologian, there are too many sede priests out there that have committed vile acts of treason against the very Christ they promised to follow and serve.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "However, I still would not refuse any man the right to the Sacraments." I don't understand what you mean by that. You wouldn't refuse someone who didn't profess the faith (one of the four marks of the church) communion? A person who accepts VC2 doesn't profess the faith of VC1 (even if they are unaware of it).

      In any event, I take it that you are not a clergy member of SSPV so you can begin your own association and give your (VC1!) "sacraments" to whomever you please. SSPV is quite open about their requirements. Refusing someone communion, just like a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a sodomite sacrament, doesn't make an organization a cult. The Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has much to answer for--and one of the biggest things they will be held accountable for is the sacrilege they have encouraged against the Blessed Sacrament. I believe their sacrilege will be paid for in the blood of martyrs--people like you who encourage others to expect sacraments as "any man's right" just makes it more likely the martyrdom will begin sooner than later.

      See "A Word to Newcomers"
      http://www.stpiusvchapel.org/

      http://www.ihm-church.org/bulletin.html

      Rules for Receiving Holy Communion

      1. One must be a Roman Catholic validly baptized with the traditional Latin ceremony. Therefore, if you have been baptized in the new English Rite (since May 5, 1969), it is necessary to bring this to the attention of the priest.
      2. One must be in the state of Sanctifying Grace, having made a good confession to a traditional
      Catholic priest.
      3. One must accept and believe all the traditional doctrinal and moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, especially as regards to marriage. Anyone who has received a marriage
      annulment must bring this to the attention of the priest before receiving Holy Communion.
      4. One must not attend Mass nor receive sacraments from those priests who are in communion with the “Old Catholic” sects, schismatics, or clergy who have received or trace their Holy Orders from the late Bishop Thuc. One must reject the pernicious errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney and that of “Feeneyism.”
      5. One should be fasting for three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages and one hour from liquids other than water. Water does not break the Communion Fast. Those who are able to do so, are encouraged to fast from midnight before receiving Communion at Mass in the morning.
      6. One must assist exclusively at the traditional Latin Mass.
      7. One must observe the dress code.

      Dress Code

      According to Apostolic Tradition, and out of respect for Our Lord’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament, the faithful must dress modestly while in the church and assisting at Holy Mass. Hence, please observe the following rules:
      Women and girls must wear a modest dress and cover their heads with either a hat or chapel veil. Short skirts which are above the knees, revealing blouses (such as low cut, sleeveless, or see-through), slacks and shorts of any length do not meet the norms of Christian modesty.
      Men and boys should be wearing neat trousers, a coat, jacket, or a dress sweater, and tie. Jeans, shorts,
      open shirts, sneakers, and other such casual dress are inapropriate and do not meet the norms of Christian
      modesty.
      Please be advised that the priest reserves the right to refuse Holy Communion to anyone that, whom in his
      prudent judgment, does not meet the requirements of the Rules for Receiving Holy Communion and Dress Code as stated above.[This was a WORD document I downloaded from search SSPV Communion]

      I note that like the intelligent, humble & fortunate person who labeled SSPV a cult simply because told couldn't receive communion w/out stating anything about the specific circumstances that you don't relate anything about your personal disagreement w/SSPV but simply label them the "Gatekeepers of Power," from whom you've saved your children (hopefully they're properly grateful to you without accusing you of playing God).

      Delete
    2. I attend a Thuc line chapel and we fast after midnight.
      The eastern Orthodox still fast after midnight like us.
      You shouldnt cast stones if you aren't obeying the ancient immemorial after midnight fast.

      Delete
  21. Your argument is bogus, as it is all based upon a supposition of which I did not say, nor did the person who posted the original statement. So your rant in defense of something that was never challenged is ludicrous. No one is saying anything about someone not being Catholic. Nobody has the right to judge another's soul, except GOD.

    Let me assure you that God covered that one for me, as He did with all parents who teach their children the obligation to obey the 4th Commandment. I didn't play God I obeyed Him.
    My personal experiences will do no good for you or anyone else as they are history, and I do not intend to be around when it starts to repeat itself.
    He didn't have to state anything, as the Gate Keeper already told him, NO COMMUNION without even asking him would he like to talk to a priest. She overstepped her bounds, and they allowed it.

    Vatican I: When the Rectory door bell rang, the housekeeper, merely opened the door and asked the person to wait in the parlor for the Good Father.
    Never did I ever witness somebody saying, "Sorry you heathen you cannot come in, or dare to receive holy communion, or talk to a priest". The priest then decides what will take place or not, not the housekeeper, or secretary. To begin with, they would not even be privileged to the conversation.
    Ode to the good old days!

    Again you do not know what was, so you must accept what is. Not me! I know the difference, and this is a cult like manner that bans before the facts are even stated.

    Quote all you will, it does not apply in this circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does not require a priest to tell someone who is non-Catholic (V2 sect) they cannot receive communion. Unlike pre-Vatican II days, Traditional priests are overworked and not readily available. Big difference

      Delete
    2. "She overstepped her bounds, and they allowed it." Did the poster say "She" or "housekeeper" or "sorry you heathen you can't come in"? I think the poster was told when called to inquire that the first time they attended the mass not to go to communion until had spoken w/a priest, i.e. all are welcome to attend mass, but there are requirements for communion. On the other hand, could have spoken w/a priest since they did say their priest who'd retired was intelligent and humble. Not sure why you are so angry--but Catholics believe Jesus did give priests power to forgive or retain sins on earth. They will be judged for what they do, just like we will. One last thing: the poster could easily provide more detail on what happened to clarify the circumstances. Could be has not come back to this blog, but to my mind hard to make any determination on what happened w/out all the facts.

      Delete
    3. I am Anon 6:17 regarding attending a Latin Mass in the Diocese with a valid Priest. I didn't realize I would create such a tempest!! This is my first time posting on this site. I was told by a secretary when I called the SSPV office that I could not receive Holy Communion because I was attending a Latin Mass in the Diocese. I told the secretary that the Priest was valid as he was 89 yrs old and she insisted that I could not receive Holy Communion. She did not say anything about my needing to talk to an SSPV Priest. I am 63 yrs old, I do not attend the Novus Ordo and never liked the Protestant/Novus Ordo and did not attend the NO for yrs. It has been only 2 yrs ago that I found the Latin Mass and the Catholic Faith of my childhood. There is no one at the Latin Mass I attended receiving communion in the hand or standing. Women are dressed modestly and are veiled. It is just like the Latin Mass I attended as a child. People are making presumptions where there are none. As for the Valid 89 yr old Priest saying the Novus Ordo, I am not responsible for what he does, God is his judge not me. As for the Mass being Una Cum, "saying Francis is Pope isn't going to make him Pope". I never liked the NO as I always felt it was Protestant and I am finding out that the majority of Traditionalists/Cultists act way to Protestant also.

      Delete
  22. Wrong again! Don't tell me about busy priests. My priest gets less than 4 hours of sleep on any given night. He takes all calls, visits the sick etc.
    Who are you to call anyone a non Catholic?

    If they are Baptized they are in the Church.
    You are on very dangerous grounds, beware you are not a priest, and your soul is in peril based on what you write.

    COMMUNION was never the topic, attending Mass was. How does the secretary know he wanted to receive Holy Communion without talking to the priest and going to Confession first? She doesn't.

    So you would deny a man on the battle field who is severely injured, and desires Baptism ? I told you: I would deny no man the right to the Sacraments, as A Catholic, you cannot. I don't care what priest you talk to, Holy Mother Church has already decided that one for us, unless you are a Feeneyite.

    Again you are misquoting, and now trying to justify the right for anybody to declare no sacrament for you because my priest is busy, and you are a non Catholic.

    You are out of your mind, and obviously not the product of a good Vatican I education.

    Don't quote the cults, I know them all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too many Popes and Bishops on this website.

      Delete
  23. And all them with no juridical power! Alas! Rendered to the Faith as taught by the nuns of Vatican I, and handed down by Tradition. Which rests with me and my generation that was taught under Vatican I and grew up under Vatican II. We, who were taught under the Catholic School Systmen are the last Vestige of the Faith has handed down by Tradition. In this case, no miter is necessary, just the Faith of all time, and not made up by some cult master for control, that he does not have.

    No money coming my way to bear the Truth! Can these Bishops say the same thing? I think not!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leave that to God.

      Delete
    2. The Shadow sounds boastful!

      Delete
  24. Leave what to God, bearing the truth? One is compelled to do that under the 8th commandment.

    Not boastful, just thankful! God was good to me allowing me to be born in a time where I can pass it on, and I do. I work very hard at keeping the proper priests funded to so as to bring the Sacrament to the people, and insure the Faith goes on. I am at this, for over 30 years, and will continue for God as long as He grants me life. And yes I am very proud of my Faith and my ancestry that fought and died for it. BTW My family history goes back over 200 years of Catholicism. Yes I am very thankful to God for my Faith, and the tradition that passed it down.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Has anybody asked you to blow your own trumpet?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, you did when you misquoted the facts!

    "Stand for something or fall for anything"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Others have more than you, but you are louder than them. Are you highly strung?

      Delete
  27. I would advice The Shadow not to answer this kind of anti-Catholic name calling. It is obvious they do not have a Catholic heritage or the understanding of the Faith. Personally I am signing off as I find Anon April 25, 2017 at 7:16 PM insulting and lacking Catholic Charity or substance Thanks Shadow for all your work to preserve the Faith for my children.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank you! Your advice is taken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Shadow"...a name that does not instill any confidence.

      Delete
    2. Alias "The Shallow".

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 26, 2017 at 6:27 AM

      Inanely Commented:

      "The Shallow" To be expect from a mindless idiot, Traddie.

      And now I take my own advice Shadow, I leave this moron to vegetate.

      Delete
    4. Name calling ... 9:46 PM please take note.

      Delete