Saturday, June 10, 2017

O HATEFUL ERROR, MELANCHOLY'S CHILD

I tell thee, thou foolish Philanthropist, I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. Emerson

The woebegone rector's May pesthouse newsletter is out. In addition to "a one-time appeal" for your hard-earned dollars to pay for outfitting the cult's new Melbourne satellite (more about this below), there's a lengthy section on the "Evolutiion of dogma" aimed at proving Bertgoglio "dead wrong in his examples."  Embarrassingly, the Donster proves himself as hopelessly fact-challenged as Bergie. Look at p. 2 where he makes makes this astonishingly absurd — and unsupported —claim:
80% of the population of the Roman Empire was slave. 
So preposterous is the assertion that we had to read it over four times. The Readers understood the cult masters were ignorant of Latin, Greek, classical literature, and ancient history, but we weren't sure until now that they had no grasp of fundamental macroeconomics and demography. You don't need a college education to realize dour Don's statistic must be wrong. Common sense should have been enough to rescue him from this depressing blunder before going to print.

As you might imagine, historians lack reliable data on the scale of slavery in Rome (the city), Italy, or the empire. The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (1989) puts the estimate for the slave population in Italy at "about one in three of the adult free population." In our own past reading, PL has seen tenuous estimates for the slave population in the empire ranging from 8% - 20%.

The most detailed study we've read on the subject comes from the Stanford specialist in ancient social/economic history and pre-modern demography, Walter Scheidel. In his 2007 monograph "The Roman Slave Supply" (click here), Prof. Scheidel, who BTW edited the Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy and wrote the chapter on slavery, produced a hypothetical model that "yields a share of slaves between 7 and 13% of the imperial population — i.e., somewhere close to one-tenth" (p. 5, emphasis ours).
N.B. That's one-tenth of the empire, NOT four-fifths as somber Sin-burn fallaciously writes. (We should add that Schediel's estimate for the slave population in Italy is 15-25% of the population, lower that one-third estimate we quoted above.) But forget about professional historians' educated guesses: the sub-amateur Donster's monstrously high figure is plain-and-simple hogwash. It betrays breathtaking economic illiteracy as well as an absence of critical-thinking skills.
Although it would be sufficient for most people to attribute the bizarre statistic to malformation (clearly the zero wasn't a typo), PL tries to dig deeper. What could be the source, we asked, of that other-worldly percentage, which an average public-high-school senior would suspect if he read it? Tradzilla's an intellectual piker, that's for sure, but it's hard to imagine he'd be that dumb without outside inspiration. He must have come across something that either he or his ill-trained helpers misread.

From reading his critique of Bergoglio, it's plain he attempted some research to make his case. (The despondent Donster's trying to show Tradistan he's superior to the Novus-Ordo establishment.) We conjecture that in an online search for material, he might have come across Prof. Scheidel's paper. Hurriedly skimming the document in search of something to make him sound authoritative, the bilious "bishop" might have stumbled upon the following statement on p. 4 (emphasis ours):
The big question is whether the other provinces were, on average, closer to the ‘Italian’ or the ‘Egyptian’ end of the spectrum. On a rough estimate, these other regions accounted for about 80% of the population of the Empire
(The last words are within a gnat's whisker of the liverish rector's wording, don't you think?)

Now, if Scheidel were his source, then we can see how the gloomy Grand High Panjandrum of Tradistan got his wild -and-crazy figure: an alien to the norms of mainstream academic discourse, too lazy or ill equipped to read the article carefully, he or one of his flunkies probably didn't understand the professor was saying that the geographical areas outside Italy and Egypt contained 80% of the entire imperial population.

Can you believe some people think this dud is some kind of oracle?

The point of today's post is not to shame the rector. We've already tried that on many occasions. It doesn't do any good: Cult kingpins are immune to shaming, and it won't induce them to admit their error or cure their defects. They just dig in deeper because cultlings are too witless themselves to care.

You, on the other hand, can learn something important: Bummed-out Big Don is NOT the scholar or deeply analytical thinker he wants you to think he is. He's not much better than a barroom braggart on a hot Saturday night at a noisy trailer-park honky tonk: All wind and no substance, hoping an air of empty authority will fool his fellow losers. No man of any sense would ever have claimed that "80% [our emphasis] of the population of the Roman Empire was slave." That's award-winning stupidity.  It should warn Catholics not to reward such surrealistic ignorance by answering the call to furnish the Melbourne Mass center with 
vestments in all the colors, copes in all the colors, High Mass candlesticks, a thurible, a processional canopy for Corpus Christi, Holy Week items, an extra chalice, two ciboria, a monstrance, and many other things(Emphasis ours.)
Remember that Tradzilla's morose retreat to Australia with his tail between his legs is the price he had to pay for getting himself kicked to the curb in Arizona. That was HIS fault. And it was his decision to pay back the CMRI for rolling all over him. Revenge may be well and good, but why should others bail him and the Ocker cultlings out? If the Melbourne coterie wants to sever ties with the CMRI to become a dependency of the Swampland, then they should buy their own vestments, instruments, and vessels — like every other new chapel.

It's no one else's charitable duty "to help Melbourne get a start," as doldrums Donald implies with a self-aggrandizing allusion to the apostle Paul's collecting from the Gentiles "a contribution for the poor of the saints that are in Jerusalem." For one thing, those Aussies are far from "poor," and for another, the Melbourne Mass center is not the mother-church of TradWorld. More importantly, victims in thrall to a non-Catholic Svengali are definitely not "saints."

If the Aussie culties cannot afford the whole kit and caboodle now, they can wait — like everyone else. Think about it: Why should the Melbourne coven need your money if it can afford to pay all doleful Don's travel expenses in December, then fly over Junior and Toady roundtrip, right after that fly in Junior and Beanpole roundtrip, and this July fly Beanpole back again?

They must be swimming in cash.  (Click here for details of "clerical" travel and of the Donster's lavish, all-expense-paid trip to gorgeous Down Under). Melborune doesn't need your welfare. And if the pesthouse paid for a couple of the junkets, then it doesn't need your charity either. (Why did Junior have to tag along anyway for two trips? Chaperone?)

But there's another reason to deny Tradzilla's demand for you to pick up the tab for his Australian adventure: You'll most likely be overpaying. As Big Don mopishly passed the hat for Melbourne, he disclosed, "The seminary has had to pay for these items and it added up to quite a bit." 

You can bet it must've added up, especially the "many other things."

Probably no expense was spared to purchase any new items, and anything that may have come from the pesthouse's stock* of liturgical goodies acquired in the rector's salad days would also have been super pricey.  Many start-up trad chapels have found more economical alternatives, such as ordering vestments from India and shopping for great deals on ebay for the rest.

If the Melburnians want extravagance, then let them reimburse the pesthouse with their own money.  We're certain Big Don can set up an easy-payment plan for those folks.

Emancipate yourself from the cult masters. Keep your money where it belongs, at home for you and yours, not with misguided strangers who obviously don't need it. 


STARVE THE GRIM, ERROR-BREATHING BEAST. 


* Maybe we're completely off base, but PL can't help suspecting that Tradzilla might be using Melbourne as an occasion to hold a "garage sale" to raise some much needed cash. Old reports from Michigan insiders told us he had a stockpile of valuable stuff, which is now probably gathering mold and insect larvae in some musty storeroom in the fetid swamp.  

73 comments:

  1. Perhaps Big Don’s claim was a “Freudian slip” – that is, he might have been thinking of his own Swampland “empire,” where 80% (or more) of the people ARE “slaves.” One thing for sure: Bodacious Don is just as big a bungler as the SGG clown crew (Dunce-cap Dannie and Antonius Balonius). It’s amazing that this idiot can still spellbind people with his humbug.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Watcher, we're dumbfounded that folks still think Tradzilla is some kind of authority. But we suppose that if you can make up mortal sins and decree 2" heels for women's shoes, you might as well invent history too.

      Delete
  2. A way for the Sisters to make money by making new vestments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A possibility, but we hear most are too spoiled to want to do the work.

      Delete
  3. Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes filled with expensive chalices and such. Maybe he can take some from his own collection to help out his new mission?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous June 11, 2017 at 12:34 AM is a rumor monger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove it wrong

      Delete
    2. We, too, have heard the same "rumor" — from a guy in Michigan who knows the ins and outs of the Donster's cult.

      Delete
    3. Ooh then the rumor just MUST must be true! Right?
      Wrong.
      But don't let that stop you women-folk.

      Delete
    4. I don't believe that the safe (or safes) full of expensive items is a rumor. When many people have seen the safes, it becomes fact. These safes, if they still exist and haven't been hidden like some bank accounts, have existed for a good number of years. I'm sure , just as a reporter says "alleged murderer" that the "rumor" of safes is the same philosophy.

      The point being that if these "alleged" safes exist, as many have stated, than why isn't he using those to share with his new missions? Or when Sanborn was so quick to point out how much the Aussies spent on him, what reason do they have not to be able to afford to buy their own vestments and things? A $7000 plane ticket, $500 fare, $1400 in hotels, showers of gifts, Bose earphones (around $300), $30 preserve, expensive hat, and very expensive cash gifts to both himself AND the seminary, That is not to mention anything they gave Selway and other priests on their two trips (airfare being an estimated $28,000, based on Sanborn's $7000 airfare). That sounds as if they have enough of their OWN money to begin their church. It also sounds as though maybe Sanborn is going to be getting a generous stipend for him sending Eldraucher there....both in the form of cash gifts to himself and the seminary. Maybe this will help fill up his "alleged" or "rumored" safes.

      In Sanborn's defense, it is only logical for him to have safes for his many treasures that he has collected. Most churches would have these to protect any valuables.

      I think the point is not about any rumored safes, but about Sanborn asking for money when he has so much hidden that he can "share" with his new mission to help get them started.


      Delete
    5. To disperse the rumouresque character of the safe allegations, I am happy to provide a picture, dated '08, from the provisional sacristy.
      http://imgur.com/a/V1pxJ

      Delete
    6. The sede clergy do seem to like Champion safes. We've seen another like it Up North.

      Delete
    7. I guess it isn't a rumor then? The number of safes that they have and the contents of the other safes are the only unknown.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous June 11, 2017 at 6:16 AM wrote:
    "Prove it wrong"

    You have it back to front. Have you no morals?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Reader,

    Sanborn wrote the following in his May newsletter:

    "I and the other priests are confident that the chapel there will grow..."

    Born in 1945 and educated in Catholic schools from elementary through college (including a master's program), the nuns drilled into me the rule that "I" must be last. It is one of the first rules of usage I remember learning.

    Popular culture reinforced the practice, as in "The King and I" and "The Egg and I." Saying "me and you" instead of "you and I" occasioned two rebukes from the sisters, one for incorrect order, the other for incorrect case. Today I would no more consider putting the pronoun "I" first in a sentence with a compound subject than I would write "me" for the subjective case. I would have thought others with a Catholic education from the Fifties would share the same sensitivity. Imagine my surprise too see in print this violation of a practice most, if not all, educated persons honor to this day, at least in formal, written English.

    I cannot always agree with your tone or your leveling strategy, but I do share your doubts about the quality of education the man received. He would do well to stick to offering the sacraments and refrain from writing until he can get a competent proofreader. This is a definite reputation destroyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "I-last" convention was by no means confined to Catholic educators. George Curme, the great grammarian and philologist, wrote in his Grammar of the English Language:

      "In a series I, for politeness' sake, is put last: 'John, Fred, and I arrived at the same time.' 'You and I had better go.'" (II, xxviii, 61).

      Delete
    2. In most English-speaking countries, Sanborn's pronoun order would be considered a lexical bar. But the U.S. has done away with class distinctions, much to its harm. How sad for the Anglo-Saxon world that Australians would hold this interloper in respect. Unlike Americans, they know better.

      Delete
  7. Speaking of eBay while looking for something else I came upon your pal's book about human hands going for sixty-three smackers. Another book was in the thirties.

    Sent from my iPad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the saying goes, "There's a sucker born every minute."

      Delete
  8. No one's bidding yet. It's in the U.K. and the dealer wants the equivalent of twenty-four dollars for postage in addition to the asking price.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That dealer must think trads are fools to pay such a price for that ill-written, error-filled piece of trash. Didn't he check the SGGResources page to see that Checkie's error-filled 2nd. edition — "the perfect gift for a trad grad" —is available for $24.95 with no shipping? But maybe he knows something we don't about UK buyers. Could it be they haven't read PL's exposé of all the stupidities starting on June 5, 2010?

      Delete
  9. This Australia set up sounds like Arizona all over again. A promise for an eventual school and sisters. Generous donations.

    Is this Sanborn's second attempt to gain money and control of someone's chapel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We think he sees a rich source of income in Australia. The Melbourne group may not have the fat bank account and real-estate holds of AZ, but they aren't poor by any means. In addition, Australia may prove to be a good dumping ground for malformed pesthouse completers.

      What we'd like to know is if the Australians are paying him as a "management fee" in addition to the expenses of running their new chapel.

      Delete
    2. Sanborn does not enter any agreement unless their is something to gain

      Delete
    3. You can say that again.

      To the uninitiated, the Melbourne chapel may look like a defensive move so he can lick his wounds after being eaten for lunch by the CMRI in AZ. However, he won't be providing "priests" free of charge forever. He'll expect a return soon.

      We hope the property laws in Australia are strong enough to keep a foreign carpetbagger from gaining control of any assets.

      He'll be on his best behavior for a while. He doesn't dare risk being kicked out of another place. But give him time, and if the Melbourne chapel prospers (which we doubt), Katy, bar the door!

      Delete
  10. The Melbourne bunch do not have the kind of money at stake in Arizona. They are at their limits with the expense of the new building rental, feeding Eldraucher etc. Under no circumstances can they afford big monthly payments to MHT. Sanborn cannot be making any real money off them. He asked for donations for vestments etc. because they do not have unlimited resources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet, they paid to wine and dine him, give him tons of gifts, and fly how many priests out there on how many occasions at a cost of $7000 per flight?

      Sorry, that doesn't fly.

      Delete
    2. We have to agree, Anon. 2:00 PM. Melbourne seems to have a considerable amount of disposable income, otherwise, why would Tradzilla have bothered?

      Maybe Anon 11:24 AM means they don't have a million and a half bucks in the bank and don't own a lot of developable acreage. But so what? Any group that can fork out that kind of money on travel has got to have resources.

      We'll trust Big Don's unerring nose for money: the Melburnians are ripe for the picking. In 2013, the Credit Suisse Research Institute identified Australia as having the second highest average wealth per adult, and since 2000 Australian household incomes have been growing rapidly. This is a brave new world of collecting opportunities for ecclesiastical buccaneers, far more lucrative than in the US and Europe. Since the Aussies don't know the Donster like like us Yanks, we'd say he's in a very good pozzy to latch on to some of that cash.

      Delete
    3. What was the reasoning junior had to go out with everyone? A free couple of vacations? To translate (I'm, of course, being sarcastic)? I don't get how these men waste as much money as they do.

      I also don't understand how they collect treasures and then claim they need more money.

      Delete
    4. We've never been able to figure out why Junior had to tag along with Toady and then Beanpole. A colossal waste of someone's money. Maybe it was part of his episcopal internship or maybe these guys needed a chaperone.

      Delete
  11. Oh how easy it is easy for some of you to judge all from afar with scant info.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The distance may be “from afar,” but the info is not scant.

      Delete
    2. The Watcher's right. We've got tons of first-class info. Some we don't post because the providers are frightened of recriminations against them or their families. But that's of little importance. What we do post is enough for anyone with a conscience to condemn the cults without fear of making a mistaken judgment. The sheer mass of facts we have in our possession and the ample testimony of former cult members give us extremely high confidence (99.99%) in the assertions we make about these scumbag clergy.

      Everyone knows in his or her heart, including Anon. 12:11 AM, that the sede cults should be shut down. They're dangerous to souls and to savings accounts.

      Delete
    3. Former cult members don't judge from afar, but they use the information and observances that have been uncovered for many years.

      It always boggles my mind how people who support them still read this blog. Either they know something is wrong or subconsciously they are looking for the truth?

      Delete
  12. I would like to know how much total the seminary cost them to build? How much to run? How much to fix (due to hiring someone who paid off inspectors)? And how many priests they have ordained there? So,what is the price per ordained priest?

    Then, I would like to know how much they expect each of their missions to contribute to the seminary? I would also like to know how many missions and what Sanborn receives from sending a priest to any of his missions? He has a Vero beach mission, Fresno, Fraser, New Mexico, and now Melbourne. Are there others?

    If something happens to Sanborn, is Junior the one to inherit everything? That would mean Junior gets the seminary, safes, any bank accounts, school, and convent? Or is it divided among his new order that he has created and now claims to act as the Pope to trad-land?

    It's one thing offering mass for those who refuse to follow v2, but to start his new order with him as the head? That seems like an ego out of control!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would also like to know how it is appropriate to have the convent next to a seminary? And a female cook and housekeeper who lives on seminary grounds? Is this how they have always done things before v2?

      Delete
    2. Junior seems to be the heir apparent.

      Delete
  13. If you have so many facts why do you also peddle admitted rumors?

    It looks bad, and it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realize that a police officer, a reporter, etc., always has to say "alleged" until convicted, right?

      Delete
    2. Rumor is often just another word for a news tip or an educated guess grounded upon substantially true information, and, if you notice, PL does use words like "seems" and "apparent" when we're speculating. Besides, use of the word "rumor" is tantamount to saying "alleged."

      Like hearsay, not all rumors are false, although at the time of their circulation they may have been unverified, which doesn't mean they weren't true. Most rumors have a basis in fact, and many turn out to be true. Smart players in every field of endeavor from journalism to stock picking to police work use rumor in making complex decisions. It's a key element in negotiating every one of life's facets.

      Take this thread as an example of our point. It started when June 11 12:34 AM used the common phrase "rumor has it" (= "it's been alleged") in reference to safes full of liturgical goodies. Since we hadn't seen Don's safes but had learned from a very, very good source in MI of its existence, we seconded 12:34's allegation. After the usual simpering (and childish) objections — from June 15 8:40 PM??? Simplicius, on June 15 8:02 AM, turned the "rumor" into a fact when he verified the safes' existence with photographic evidence:

      To disperse the rumouresque character of the safe allegations, I am happy to provide a picture, dated '08, from the provisional sacristy.
      http://imgur.com/a/V1pxJ.


      And with his comment, the humble larva of rumor metamorphosed into the gorgeous butterfly of fact.

      So right here in this very thread you have proof that not all rumor is false or inaccurate. Moreover, by making the rumor public, through the efforts of others, its veracity was confirmed. That's one of the great advantages we now have with the Internet. That's why the cult masters' can't hide any longer. Perhaps that's why 8:40 is so exercised.

      As a post script, know that rumor doesn't always look bad, nor is it always bad. Most people know it's a useful tool for getting at that truth — in this case, backing our position that Big Don has no need of people's money to outfit the new Melbourne cult center.

      (BTW, if 8:40 PM is too lazy to paste Simplicius's link in her or his browser, HERE is a direct link. (Don't forget, 8:40, to count the safes.)

      Delete
    3. We love it when people like Anon.’s June 11, 1:17 AM, June 13, 2:28 AM, June 15, 12:11 AM, June 15, 8:40 PM, and June 15, 8:47 PM make their baseless allegations, only to be proven DEAD WRONG (after which, they are either strangely silent; or, like the greased pigs that they are, they slither off to some other corner to bring up another baseless allegation). Don’t they know that when they (invariably) get proven wrong, it hurts the causes of their cult master idols all the more? When will these losers ever learn to “do their homework” before opening their ignorant mouths?

      Delete
    4. One reason people with vested interests try to suppress rumors about them is their fear of being scrutinized too closely. The surfacing of a rumor often inspires people to investigate it, which leads to the discovery of the truth.

      Sociologically, rumor is an informal means of social communication, which provides strategic information people need. Although some rumors are part of a disinformation campaign, not all are. Many are merely reports that have not been subject to verification. Once that happens, they become truth. That category of "rumor" is the target of all oppressors.

      Delete
    5. I am in complete agreement with the Reader and PL. Rumor is not a statement of doubtful truthfulness, as 8:40 appears to believe. Most professional lexicographers would agree it is
      "an unconfirmed report circulating in a community." Yesterday's rumor is usually tomorrow's historical fact, as the fans of Shy Di and Prince Charles will tell you. 8:40 & the other shills for Dolan and Sanborn know they can't defend those reptiles so they jump on moral boogiemen like "rumor," as if it were some horror to shame this blog. That goody two shoes attitude never works because PL hits right back with the truth.

      Delete
  14. All we have been given is a photo of a safe. So what? That does not prove the rumors of what is supposed to be in it.

    They should have safes.
    It would be irresponsible not to.

    And if they did not have safes you women would be saying they are not being responsible.

    And even if they have the items you think they do, so what> Why shouldn’t they?

    Do you think that SSPX and FSSP have safes with valuable items in them?

    You sound like Prots who have long complained about the wealth of the Vatican and the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousJ une 15, 2017 at 8:47 PM
    You do realize that a police officer, a reporter, etc., always has to say "alleged" until convicted, right?

    **Do you realize there is a good reason for that?
    Many people are innocent of rumors and allegations made about them.
    Have you not noticed that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they are looking for a new juror for Bill Cosby's trial. The defense would love to have you. Innocent because of his position, not due to any facts presented over and over again.

      Delete
  16. A photo with a cleric in it who is not unhappy about the photo being taken.
    Nothing wrong in the photo.
    You women are too much.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Women" being the operative word. Just a bunch of gossipy, old spinsturds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of you misogynists have missed two the key points of the thread:

      (1) Sanborn has tons of liturgical vessels. He can afford to outfit the new Melbourne cult center without asking the laity to pay for it.

      (2) The "rumor" reported on June 11 12:34 is true, and hence 12:34 is not a "rumor monger" but a truth teller, a reporter of fact.

      Delete
  18. "Rumor has it that Don has at least two large safes filled with expensive chalices and such."

    You are missing the point. We do not know what is in the safe, do we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't you look at the photograph Simplicius posted? Click HERE.

      Delete
  19. Pistrina Liturgica June 16, 2017 at 10:09 AM does not mention the Catholic moral teaching about rumors.

    Maybe she will soon. Of course if she does it will be in her usual balanced manner,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon’s 7:04 AM and 7:10 AM (probably the same troll): It is you who are missing the point. The rest of humanity “gets it,” but you don’t. And you are still pretending to take the “moral high ground” with your Pharisaic allegations about “rumors.” Like the greased pigs that you are, when you are proven wrong (as you were about the existence of Big Don’s treasure trove of goodies), you just slither off to another corner to make another false accusation.

      And your sanctimonious proselytizing on “Catholic teaching” about rumors is another false accusation from you hypocrites: a rumor per se is not sinful; it is sinful only when it is scandalous, and turns out to be untrue. This rumor was not scandalous – and it was true. (What is actually scandalous is Big Don’s hoarding of valuable artifacts , then begging for money from others to furnish the same for Melbourne.) You know it, but you won’t admit it. Instead, after suffering the exposure of your denials being found out to be embarrassingly wrong, you shamelessly do your “guilt-tripping best” to shift blame elsewhere -- complete with misogynist taunts about “women.” Give it up, guys!

      Delete
    2. As pointed out above, the report of the safes full of liturgical vessels was not really a rumor, if by "rumor" you mean a falsehood purposefully and unjustly circulated to denigrate someone's good name.

      Anon 6/11 12:30's phrase "rumor has it" is simply an everyday, shorthand expression for "I've heard reports." And it turned out that those reports were verified by photographic evidence.

      At no time did 12:34 or anyone unjustly defame the rector for having purchased the safes or for storing his luxury liturgical wares in them. Indeed, he was prudent to do so, as someone observed above, and PL lauds him for his prudence. Therefore, the report, which was subsequently corroborated, actually led to an increase of Tradzilla's good name. In other words, there was nothing defamatory. Quite the contrary.

      But more importantly, 12:34's comment was tangential to PL's original position that the laity did not have to respond to Tradzilla's appeal for money to outfit the new Melbourne cult center because MHT probably already possessed a large supply. It was Big Don himself who made that appeal public, not the Readers or any commenters. Likewise the photo: he must not have had a problem with folks' knowing about the vessels and the safes or he wouldn't have permitted a picture with one of his completers posing beside all the ecclesiastical bling. To us, it looks as though the Big Kahuna were bragging about his possessions, which as a Christian he should share with those in need, like the Melbourne cultlings, who have taken off his hands one of the mouths he has to feed.

      Delete
    3. This isn't asking that Sanborn sell the church treasures, but share them with other churches so that they can celebrate mass. Instead of keeping them to himself or locked in a safe , share them with his OWN missions. Instead, he asks for more money from his parishioners for something he already possesses. That is wrong. You guys all share, but I don't have to share? That's not Catholic. But, as so many people have pointed out, he tends to not be Catholic in so many ways that this isn't a surprise.

      Delete
    4. [Here because of thelaypulpit's article which am just now getting to read
      http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2017/07/you-cant-fix-stupid.html]

      Geepers, all the references to 'she' and 'her' and the reference I noticed last night in another piece opining same about The Wanderer - a comment which didn't merit an answer and never got one, heads up!

      By all means continue complimenting the fair sex! But is that what you mean to do?

      This site is meticulously rational, deeply intelligent, sensitively written and admits mistakes on rare occasions as necessary.

      Sheesh.

      Delete
  20. For those women-hating cult followers out there, this "Readerette" on PL's staff wants to put her 2 cents in on this thread. As was written back in 2009,

    Any charges whatsoever against PL of detraction are groundless. Detraction is the unjust disclosure of another's hidden fault. In a case like the present crisis, however, moral theologians teach that it is not against justice to confirm what are already public and notorious offenses. Moreover, if there is an evil effect, then it must have cause. We are allowed, morally, to identify that cause for the public good. And anyone who permits, let alone condones, such evil effects has lost his right to a good reputation (B. H. Merkelbach, O.P., Summa Theologiæ Moralis, (Montréal: Desclée, 1954), Tomus Secundus: De Virtutibus Moralibus, §§429 and 430).

    As an FSSP chick, my advice is for these dateless, love-lorn trad lads is to enroll in YAG and find a cultie skag who is deserving and desirous of degradation at the hands of a low life sede "male."

    ReplyDelete
  21. FSSP chick.
    No wonder you like it here and are revered by The Campaigners, being that most of you detest all sedes, preferring Bergoglio to those who hold the Catholic fort.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We think we can speak on "Readerette's" behalf: no one here at PL — SSPXer, FSSPer, Traditionalist Novus Ordite, or thoughtful sedevacantist — prefers Bergie. Furthermore, the weird Tradistani cults are not the "Catholic fort." They're money-mad, non-Catholic impostors. It seems to us that the N.O. traditionalists, FSSP, and SSPX are the ones holding down the "Catholic fort," since they're working from within the historical institution. Everyone else is on the outside.

    That's not to say there aren't some distant frontier outposts keeping the faith intact until the Restoration. There are. But they're not the malformed Tradsistani cult masters. They are the decent and humble independents who stick to providing sacraments and don't claim to be the only Catholics left, even if they're sedes. And they don't engage in troublemaking and divisiveness like the Tradistanis.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Aren't you supposed to be resting from hate today?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We fear your sanctimony is misdirected, 10:25 AM. The only emotion we feel for the Tradistani cult kingpins is righteous, principled contempt for these sub-educated interlopers. That's why we're always vigilant, 24/7.

      Delete
  24. At MHT in Warren, there was a large walk-in, janitor-esque closet across the hall from the chapel. It was completely loaded with liturgical items, had an alarm and was referred to by DS himself as the "Closet of Swank." That was in 1999/2000. You can be certain the collection has grown. Frankly, those being fleeced by DS, His Effeminacy DD, et alii (i.e., the Vipers of Vaudeville) have no excuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy to hear from you, Gladius Veritatis. Hope this means you'll be returning to the good fight someday soon. The scuz-buckets are on the run, thanks in no small measure to your great efforts.

      Not only do the sheeple have no excuse, they deserve no pity if they let themselves be sheared by answering Tradzilla's appeal for $$ for Melbourne.

      Delete
  25. You and the FSSP/SSPX can keep Deacon Bergoglio.
    God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the offer, but we never wanted him nor did we ever embrace him in the first place. We knew who he was while he served as abp. of B.A.

      Our traditional allies in the N.O. are doing their level best to make his pontificate as uncomfortable as possible through insider resistance. Plus they're working behind the scenes to mitigate his evils and prepare the way for the Restoration.

      Please note, however, that our refusal of your offer doesn't mean we didn't appreciate the kindness motivating it. Accordingly, we'd like to return the sentiment by inviting you and your fellow cultlings to keep Deacon Dan. May God have mercy on your souls.

      Delete
    2. I don't know Bishop Dolan nor have I ever met him.
      Vatican 2 documents contain outright heresy.
      Your Novus Ordo allies should realize truth & error cannot coexist.

      Delete
    3. That's why they're fighting from within.

      BTW, congrats on not knowing "One Hand."

      Delete
    4. The Reader et al,
      Nope. Sorry. That won't cut it. There is definitely anger and hatred in this equation.
      You aren't convincing. You (collectively) have a major, personal, axe to grind. The healing cannot commence until you take ownership of the truth. So, what did these clerics do to you which precipitated this obsession and Internet sniping?

      Delete
    5. True, we feel righteous anger at what these men have done — and continue to do. But hatred? No. Not a scintilla, unless it's for the evil that's been done to souls. As for any wounds, they healed almost miraculously on the day some of us left Tradistan. (As you know, several of the Readers never fell for the cult masters' act.)

      You've got it all wrong when you call our apostolate an "obsession," unless you mean by that a dedication to putting an end to error and imposture. Likewise with "sniping." Our blog is out in the open, and we allow anybody to fireback at us, as you're doing. Our assertions are supported, and we make clear the degree of our certainty is expressed for each one.

      We know we won't change your mind about our motives. It's apparent you cannot understand how our persistence in getting the truth out about these wolves in sheep's clothing can rest on moral principles, not emotion. Each to his own.

      Delete
    6. Hmmm, “axe to grind”? That phraseology has a familiar ring to it! To paraphrase Benjamin Tabart’s Jack and the Beanstalk, “Fee, fi, fo, fum, I smell the scent of some cult-master scum!” The charge of “internet sniping” also has a familiar ring to it -- as does the trite and smarmy “Nope. Sorry. That doesn’t cut it.” But, regardless of whom it is, it’s the same old Tradistan claptrap: making accusations with absolutely no proof, and trying to “take the moral high ground” when they have absolutely none to stand on. So,, Anon. 11:06 PM, we give your words back to you: “Nope. Sorry. That won’t cut it.”

      Delete
  26. This is for the guy who is obsessed with copying and pasting his same post over 10 times and is now posting on the laypulpit too:

    As you have said, you haven't "met" those men who you feel are such honest, hardworking, wonderful men. I have, and I am certain you are confused. I have no clue why you would vouch for someone you have never met? That's like giving a job reference to someone you have never met. Is that even ethical?

    Please don't come on here and talk about these wonderful traditional priests, when as you even admitted, you have had no contact. It certainly isn't an honest or prudent judgement call.

    By the way, I think you need to grow up. Copying and pasting your errors everywhere is such a waste of your time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hmmm ... very interesting comments on the Melbourne crowd. Generally, I wouldn't trust any Mexicans (as we New South Welsh fondly think of the Vics ... sorry, Victorians) as far as I could kick them. I wonder who is exploiting whom here. I agree that it sounds as though they wanted to oust the CMRI priest and so appealed to the non-CMRI camp. I agree too that they seem generally to be well-heeled. They certainly seemed to be bending over backwards to impress their visitors in January this year. Perhaps they are naive, as was suggested. Personally I doubt that. What we may be seeing here is the possible collision of two groups of wheelers and dealers

    ReplyDelete