Saturday, July 22, 2017


Where etiquette prevents me from doing things disagreeable to myself, I am a perfect martinet. (The Rev.) Sidney Smith

Today's topic is a postscript to NOTHING BUT A NAME, which we published here on July 8. Like that post, this one was occasioned by an e-mail from a long-time friend of PL. The subject of the interchange was the incompetence of a certain trad "bishop" (not a member of the SW Ohio-Brooksville cult). In reply to a judgment the Reader-in-Chief had made, our correspondent admitted,
"In my candid opinion, none of these so-called bishops should ever have been made bishops."
We've often heard a similar sentiment from dozens, if not scores, of traditional Catholics of all ecclesiological persuasions. A few of the Readers may have written something to that effect on these pages. Furthermore, in all likelihood, many SW Ohio-Brooksville cult members must certainly share the same reservation about "One Hand," Tradzilla, and the Jellyfish, yet they soldier on notwithstanding their misgivings.

As we discussed our correspondent's remark, lamenting that so many otherwise intelligent Catholics think they have to put up with idiocy and bad behavior from "THE Bishop" (LOL), one of us had an "ah-ha!" moment:
"The problem with traddies," our inspired colleague interjected, "is they can't tell the difference between the orders and the office. They think if a man has episcopal character because of consecration, even though he got it illegally, he automatically has the 'right stuff'  — along with a brief to lead Catholics."
She was so very right on the money!

In the real Church, there's a long vetting process to identify candidates who have what it takes to become the ecclesiastical ruler of a diocese (or run a Vatican department). Until the Church is satisfied a man has the requisite training, temperament, and experience, he remains a priest. No such screening process, however, obtains among the sedes. They're all self-elected, despite the pretentious nonsense you may read on their websites about pondering at length their "election" before "reluctantly" accepting the burdensome dignity. (Give us a break, will ya!)

In Sedelandia there are, first of all, no dioceses to rule, hence no flocks to shepherd. There's no episcopal office in that desert wasteland.  What we have in Tradistan and elsewhere is a topsy-turvy mess. Episcopal orders are freely given, contrary to Church law, to untried, untrained, un-Tridentine religious entrepreneurs, who'll never occupy a diocesan or titular see and will never enjoy any of the privileges of a Roman Catholic prelate. (For the paying trad laity, the most significant disability of these fake "bishops" is that they do not have the benefit of the daily privileged altar on which a plenary indulgence may be gained for a soul in Purgatory.)

Inasmuch as the episcopate may only be held inside the historic, institutional Church, not one of these interlopers can properly be called a bishop, a word that comes from the Greek ἐπίσκοπος, "overseer, supervisor, ruler, superintendent, guardian." The Church is fully aware of this sense in her divine polity, and trads should be, too: If an ecclesiastical adventurer can never have title to any see, he cannot rightly claim the name belonging to the office. (N.B. In the real Church, a man cannot be consecrated without such title.) 

All that Sedelandia offers are some laymen with valid but illicit episcopal orders, which enable them to ordain and confect holy oils. (Any priest can confirm, as you know.) Possessing episcopal orders is in no way a token of a man's fitness to lead or teach. Nor do those impermissibly conferred orders assure the faithful that these episcopi vagantes have the requisite education in theology and canon law from a school approved by the Holy See, since almost any yokel without a degree can get consecration for the asking.  (There are more than a handful of "bishops" here and abroad eager to impose hands lightly.) As a result, with the exception of some "bishops" with real credentials who left the Novus Ordo for tradition, it's likely that most, if not a all, would be found unfit for the office if they were members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now this absence of office has practical implications for the laity's social attitude toward the impostors. Since the sede make-believe "bishops" received their orders without Apostolic mandate, they cannot command our immediate respect and deference, any more than the holder of a Ph.D. from an online diploma mill can expect us to admire a credential purchased, not earned. Such a degree is meaningless, for it provides no warrant of the hard-won knowledge that lies behind a doctorate awarded by a legitimate university.

From all that we've said, it's plain these "bishops" have no right to any of the episcopal insignia of office, except during ceremonies, where the rubrics require them. The prohibition applies in particular to their wearing an episcopal ring and expecting the laity and "clergy" to kiss it. In PL's view, this practice is one of the worst abuses in TradWorld, worse than wearing a train during the liturgy.  If the laity would quit fetishizing bling, all that angst about the sedes' manifest unsuitability would vanish: people would simply throw the crud balls out on their backsides without a second thought.

It's time, then, for PL to administer a much needed corrective. Maybe we can't put an end to the continuing abuse of prelatical vesture, but we do stand a chance of cleaning up this small area by persuading you to stop feeding these dirtbags' egos.

John Abel Nainfa wrote in 1909 (Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church),
The ring, symbolizing the spiritual marriage of a Bishop and his church, has always been considered one of the principal insignia of the episcopal rank(p. 138) ... the ring [is] the symbol of his close union with his church, as well as the sign of his authority (p. 143) ...
To the extent that sede kingpins have no territory and are without jurisdiction, that flashy ring they flaunt symbolizes nothing. It's presence doesn't even rise to the level of deceit because everyone, including the wearer, knows sede "bishops" have no authority: they rule over nothing to which their illicitly imprinted episcopal character is formally united. The situation is actually funny, like a sick-burned grammar-school dork who pins on a plastic sheriff's badge, insisting his classmates and teachers make way as he saunters into the cafeteria, squinting like a pint-sized Clint Eastwood at all the "bad" hombres

The whole business of the fakers' rings raises another issue. Sede lay folks are infamous for their eagerness to degrade themselves before bejeweled nincompoops: self-abasement, it would seem, affords cult-addicted trads a freakish pleasure, somewhat akin to self-mutilation. (Whatever floats your boat, we guess.) That accounts for the frequent spectacle of laymen and -women bobbing up and down as they smooch an ill-formed impostor's ring. If they think the gesture is a sign of their urbanity, they're in for a big let-down. According to Nainfa (p. 144), you only genuflect when kissing the episcopal ring
if the Bishop is within the limits of his own diocese, as it is an acknowledgement of his jurisdiction as Ordinary. Outside of his own diocese, etiquette requires that he should only permit a low bow due to his character as a Bishop.
To put it frankly, to kiss a sede's ring and curtsy is a faux pas of ecclesiastical etiquette. These bums don't have diocese to be out of! It's akin to a prosecutor's calling a shabby tramp arrested on a charge of vagrancy "Your Honor" and then standing up when he shuffles in, handcuffed, before the judge.

We think you get the picture by now, so we needn't ply you with additional citations from other authorities. If you're ever tempted again to bow and scrape, kindly recall the following points:
1. Sede "wandering bishops" may not wear a ring outside liturgical functions because they are united to nothing in the Roman Catholic Church. If you meet a film-flam man wearing one, stare at it while simultaneously shaking your head in smug disapproval.
2. The laity and "clergy" should never reverence the ring on a pretended bishop's hand, for the jewelry he wears represents something he doesn't possess.  Should you want to declare your abject servitude to a masquerading scumbag, direct the gesture to a more appropriate location. 
3. Insofar as the episcopal character these title-less interlopers possess was acquired outside the Church, there's no obligation to bow. If you do, you're abetting ecclesiastical outlawry
4. Lastly, there's nothing in it spiritually for you.  Seeing that these parasites are not members of the hierarchy, you can't earn the indulgence of 50 days for a devout kiss. All you stand to pick up is a slimy gob of spit left by the rite-trash hilljack with a cold sore who preceded you.
Show TradWorld your mom taught you to mind your manners. The next time a sede phony sticks his grubby hand under your nose, stand up straight, and don't pucker up — ever again.

The cult masters never imagined it'd end like this.

* We would contend that sede "wandering bishops" have no rank at all since rank in this sense means "relative position or degree of value in any graded group." Inasmuch as they are not in union with the Church, they don't belong to the Church's hierarchy of jurisdiction. Thus it's impossible to locate them in relation to any legitimate member sharing in episcopal power. (Incidentally, that's also why none may be called a prelate (lit. "one preferred," "one given preference," "one set before," "one set above"), hence PL's coinage prelataster, "a would-be prelate.")

A rabid cult defender might argue sede "bishops" have rank in the hierarchy of order (subdeacon deacon  priest  bishop). If they do (and that's a big if), we say it's imperfect because they received no title from the Church before their lawless consecration. Ranks, you see, are subordinated for a specific purpose; the divine purpose of a bishop is, as a successor to the Apostles, to rule and govern the Church under Peter. But the sedes do no such thing, not even in do-what-you-want Tradistan. There, the only purpose seems to be to demand money and ordain, without ecclesiastical authorizationvery low-wattage ne'er do wells.


  1. I am surprised that your ecclesiology is so spot on. It's what I've thought for years and even discussed privately with some of the clergy that fill these pages. Of course they didn't agree - how could they - Tony Chortles (since he chortles his way through any of his videos with total pomposity) could never countenance he was nothing more than a layman masquerading as a priest and yet when the Archpriest started: Postulat Sancta Mater Ecclesia..." Holy Mother the Church was asking absolutely nothing - not even a dimmisorial letter in sight still less in the prelate's pocket.

    1. 4:09

      How well we remember Checkie's chortling when he faced a tough question he couldn't answer. Years ago we recognized it as a defense mechanism, and that's when we dismissed him as a serious person.

      But it works on most of the cult followers.

    2. His jokes bounce you along until you realize there's no substance and when you realize that, the jokes fall flat. I wrote him off 20 years ago but I still bought that darned book and what a waste - I can hear his chortling voice reading the thing - I couldn't take that, his jokes or his complete self-inflation as he thought he was convincing me that he knew something after all. Pure hack - that's all he is, no wonder he said he only had one book in him - I've yet to see it.

    3. This was my process of realization, too.


    Look for May 10, 2016 if you need to get up to speed about the FSSP.

    I wrote to the FSSP asking for assurance that their sacraments are valid in view of the Paul VI changes to ordinations. Received reply 'our sacraments are certainly valid.' Wrote again reemphasizing ordination and received no reply.

    Sent the Ask the Fathers department's reply, see comment dated May 10, 2016 though I am sure it won't be read in full.

    Because of this site I have become refreshed. I'm the one who was 'wed' to TRRadio, the born protestant one without the time to do more than listen to podcasts over the last several years. Since I quit the job, things allow for true growth.

    1. Try writing to the Traditio "Fathers" about their orders (e.g., what bishop ordained "them") and see what kind of response you get.

    2. The only "Father" we know of was ordained by Alioto a deceased man who claimed to have been consecrated by Wallace de Ortega Maxey but since he was frequently in his cups all sorts claimed "ordination" etc. by him. As for Alioto a fellow present for the ordination told me it was him.

    3. Dear Nandarani,

      If you want to assure yourself about the validity of any group, it's best not to ask them directly. For instance, if you wrote $GG about the validity of "One-Hand Dan's" orders and the orders of the unfortunates he's ordained, they'd undoubtedly write the same thing, viz. "Our sacraments are valid."

      Determining validity takes a lot of independent research and study, and even then you'll not be 100% certain. No one can know for sure until the Church decides the question. In the meantime, we all are left to weigh probabilities. If you conclude validity is doubtful, then you must stay away because a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament.

    4. Reader - You state above "if you conclude validity is doubtful, then you must stay away because a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament". Please see, May 20, 2017, "But What About the SSPX and FSSP"? The Lay Pulpit states that a sacrament is to be considered valid unless found otherwise. How do you respond to these inconsistencies?

    5. In dubio pars tutior sequenda est.

    6. My thoughts, but don't bring it up to lay pulpit. They jump down my throat every time I bring up that the FSSP consists almost entirely of doubtful priests, and is also not really traditional in the sense they must give an annual sermon affirming Vatican II and they schill for their local novus ordo shakedowns. Clearly the watcher has little or no familiarity with the group.

    7. "they must give an annual sermon affirming Vatican II"


    8. Who Ordained & Consecrated Bishop Maxie?

  3. Breaking news: According to a decision by the Papal Commission Ecclesia Dei dated 14.06.17, the so called "Pontifical Sung Mass" (sung Mass celebrated by a bishop without sacred ministers) is not permitted.

    So, once again, "modernist Rome" is more traditional than those a amateur performers in Castri Occidentalis (lol!).

    1. And don't forget about the dilettantes at "Brooksvillense" (rotfl), where in the schedule for May 14, 2017, we found this entry:

      Pontifical Sung Mass with Chaplains 10:30 A.M. C Bishop Sanborn C1 Rev. Mr. Dutertre C2 Fr. Fliess

      Will the whole SW Ohio-Swampland cult defend Inter Oecumenici to the bitter end?

    2. I recall a comment from a CMRI "Father" years ago in regards to priests who lived through the changes of the 50s and 60s "It's always funny watching them say Mass because they can't quite remember which genuflection was suppressed when and so they do the darnedest things when they say Mass." I would add that it's the seminarians of that era that have picked up the same habits.

    3. Agreed. But the CMRI are well known for the oddities of some of their liturgical gestures.

      There's really no reason for all this confusion in Traddieland. There are numerous old books available that explain every gesture in painstaking detail. All these guys have to do is study and practice, but some apparently are too lazy to put in the hard work needed to get it right. There's really no excuse today what with video on every cell phone. They could have someone record one of their Masses and then review their errors against the detailed instructions in the how-to manuals.

    4. Just in case someone's reading back posts, on Big Don's August 2017 schedule, he slated a Pontifical Sung Mass for the Assumption.

      Looks like the Inter Oecumenici practice will be alive and well in Tradistan despite "modernist Rome's" suppression of the innovation.

  4. You know, the Catholic moral theologians say that if a family had good reason to believe that the human race was facing extinction, that emergency would allow brother and sister to marry and have children, and it would be necessary and pleasing to God. Without such an emergency, it is despicable sin of incest. Yet, if such a family had good reason to believe there was such an emergency and produced children, and you here at PL found out about it and knew they were mistaken about the emergency, you would laugh, mock and excoriate them to no end. Nothing just or charitable about it. You would actually be laughing at a material mistake. Just an analogy...

    The Church is facing extinction now. If I left it at that, you would laugh and mock. But even Pope Innocent III in his day considered Christianity to be facing extinction. Laugh at him? I don't think it is beneath you.

    Whether you think the sedes are mistaken about there being no pope, there is no rule book on how to handle the unprecedented situation. You may laugh because they wear a ring to signify they have been consecrated, but why aren't you spending time on what is more important and more prevalent? Do you believe Francis is pope? If you do, submit to him. Then you have the SSPX which believes a pope can be head of the true Church AND head of a false church simultaneously. That is SO heretical it is laughable, so why aren't you exposing that dangerous belief? The SSPX believes that the Church can produce a poisonous liturgy. That is definitively heretical blasphemy. Where are you with that?

    No, you spend you time laughing at priests because of their stature, or where they lived when they were young, etc. etc., Seriously, are you a rich, spoiled, bed-ridden teenager to have so much time with this nonsense blog?

    You constantly campaign make Bp. Dolan's priesthood doubtful because of the "one hand" issue. Yet, when I read Fr. Cekada's year-2000 piece on that, the quotes from the Church cannot be more explicit in saying categorically and positively that such a thing is VALID. Why are you going against the Holy Mother Church? Perhaps you are a disgruntled apostate seeking your revenge because you were once in sede-land and took scandal? Now you are just miserable, and the miserable seek company...that's why you have this blog.

    1. 8:22 AM

      First off, you need to read our rebuttal/refutation of Erroneous Antonius's error-filled monograph. You can find it HERE. You'll see it wasn't PL who went against the Church.

      Although we've said it many times, we'll say it again: some of us here are sedes, but they know that SVism is merely a hypothesis. They also know better than to pretend that Sedelandia is the Church. Most importantly, they're sophisticated enough to acknowledge that sede "clergy" do not belong to the Roman Catholic clerical state or the hierarchy.

      Your assertions about SSPX beliefs are risible and based on your own (or a cult master's) ill-founded conclusions. No SSPXer or well-informed traditional Catholic would affirm that you have represented the society's position accurately. In fact, they would characterize your description as fictitious.

      The Readers have always acknowledged there's a deep crisis in the Church, but both Bergie and the sedes are part of it. Catholics need to be warned about both mortal dangers to the faith.

      Our apostolate is exclusively devoted to exposing Tradistan. We leave it to the many qualified others, such as George Neumayr, to cover Frankie and New Church.

    2. Yes, I have characterized the SSPX correctly, and if you don't know that, perhaps you are following some cult that insists you think their way. I know what SSPX writings have explicitly affirmed, and I have merely conveyed them here, again. There is no denying it. Both are seriously dangerous to Faith, and oblige all those who see it, to not associate with the SSPX. I have experienced it many times presented on Catholic fora, and the SSPX remain silent.

    3. No, you haven't done anything of the like. Your characterization is a figment of your fevered imagination.

      You've got a serious problem: you can't discern the difference between what you want to believe and what's reality.

      Since you cannot produce any direct, verifiable citations from the SSPX, we absolutely can deny your assertions.

    4. Your response shows one of two things?
      Either you are so arrogant that you think there is nothing more for you to know, or else you are indeed part of a cult that goes immediately into denial at the prospect of an inconvenient truth. They are actually very closely related. You are the one with the VERY serious problem.

      It's not Catholic to outright deny something you have not heard before. The Catholic thing to do is to calmly and charitably say you are not convinced and then to SINCERELY ask for proof.

    5. To be quite fair, I think he has pretty much summarized some of the opinions of SSPX. Such as the organization is, it is impossible to pin it down, but they have countenanced attacks on even non-dogmatic sedes and their visible leader was in lengthy discussion with Bergoglio like he was a legit pope. His picture hangs on their walls. To me, this means they are in Bergie's camp, weather they are valid or not (I think they are). The basically Gallican thinking they sometimes proffer to justify their situation can be a definite source of error.

    6. I hold no grudges against the SSPX as they have valid traditional clergy.
      With that said the original comment pretty much nailed their bizarre theology.

  5. WEAK comeback. Unconvincing. You have zero credibility.

    1. You obviously didn't — or couldn't — read our refutation of Tony Baloney's mess (which, BTW, contains a perverse translation of infallible papal teaching).

      Well, if you ever want to educate yourself in the future, you can always find it again at the top of this blog under the caption DUBIETY OF ORDINATION CONFERRED WITH ONE HAND.

  6. Your excursus on the ring made me think of the famous story about Spellman, Cushing and the lost but found ring which may be urban legend.

    Also, the fellow found running the recent Vatican gay -drug orgy was said to have been on the fast track to the episcopacy due to his relationship with a certain Cardinal.

    The fellow who carried the bags of his bishop was named an auxiliary for the same. Alas, he never became an ordinary.

    Only a few examples to question your glorification of your nebulous official church.

    I'm not defending the sedelandia prelates. They and the Old Catholics who have been around longer seem to reflect the negative facets of the official church without accomplishing as much.

    1. It shows that the sedes have not thought through all the implications of their position. If they were genuine, they would live with all the necessary consequences of operating outside the Church, even if it meant not being able to play dolly dress up.

  7. It is, it seems, not understood, that the power of order and that of jurisdiction differ in purpose, nature and mode of transmission. While the power of order is a a participation of the priesthood of Christ, jurisdiction is a participation of Christ's kingship. As Charles Journet writes: "Christ being Head of the Church in a sovereign manner and in virtue of His own proper authority, he others being heads in a dependent manner and as delegated by Christ." (see III, q. 8 art. 6)

    The power of jurisdiction exists for the external preaching of Christian truth, speculative and practical, the outward proclamation of the full divine revelation. It is a moral authority, mission and power, aided by a wide range of graces of assistance.

    State of sede vacante or not, those without jurisdiction cannot lay claim on proclaiming revelation, of preaching the fullness of Christian truth. They have no jurisdictional, that is no moral power.

    I am even tempted to say that the sedes of cultish provenance are falling into an theological error at least in the practical order by postulating a dual hierarchy, one of order, the other of jurisdiction. But there is only one sole hierarchy with two distinct but interdependent powers, and they have no part in it. This is, I might say, the deeper theological reasoning behind the excellent article by Pistrina.

    1. Thanks much for the kind words.

      You're right. Behind our post is the belief in the unity of the Church's hierarchy, the separate classes merely indicate its two dimensions: order for sanctification and jurisdiction for government. The separation is only conceptual, however.

      Your observation about the sedes' dishonest strategy of positing a real dual hierarchy in an effort to acquire some legitimacy is brilliant, for it underscores their isolation as well as their alienation.

  8. "...It's akin to a prosecutor's calling a shabby tramp arrested on a charge of vagrancy "Your Honor" and then standing up when he shuffles in, handcuffed, before the judge..."

    How right you are Reader! Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens in the world of the Courts today. The former name for the apprehended suspected criminal was The "Perp. " Today he is referred to as the "Gentleman." I think once this "House of Cards" gets it game together both in the Church, and the World, then Gentleman will be demoted to the Perpetrator, and the Begging Bishops Bobbing for Baubles, will return to exactly what they are, Prelates without Posts .

    1. The world's turned upside down today.

      Trads can in part right the mess by recognizing that these "bishops" are not the real thing.

      Ideally, all trad "clergy" would have regular jobs and offer Mass on Sundays at the request of Catholics, but without preaching, unless they read a sermon from the old days. Afterward, they would change back into civvies and lead the life of laymen. Theirs is the lay state by default since they don't belong to the hierarchy.

      If Catholics so requested, they could offer Mass on holy days, but as on Sundays, there is no obligation since the centers they operate are not erected within the Church.

      It's time to stop playing Church — on everybody's part.

  9. "...Will the whole SW Ohio-Swampland cult defend Inter Oecumenici to the bitter end?"

    Of course they will! They make it up as they go! They answer to NO MAN, no matter who that man may be.

    Their Motto is: Take while the taking is good, right down, and including, to the last drop.

    1. As long $GG and the Swamp are around, Inter Oecumenici's license to celebrate Mass in cantu more presbyterorumis here to stay.

      And why not? Fake wandering bishops faking a fake liturgy. Smells just like Tradistan.

  10. I am not able to read the post and comments at present but wanted to say this - TRRadio is expanding, catering will occur in Florida for the first annual meeting in December, procedures for renewal are being refined, hotels arranged, drive to seminary videotaped to give people an idea, room quality vetted, etc. This is SH's thoroughness in action.

    etc. I am only trying to let you know that though I cancelled my original 'sense' was and continues to be that this particular mission will grow and attract new people.

    As everyone knows, I'm the kind of person who was drawn to it because of paucity of Catholic background being born protestant, and because of lack of time to research farther than the podcasts.

    Things are never going to get simpler except in our own spiritual life as we with great determination focus upon our interior lives.

    Here is an unexpected find! Be sure you read this.

    This is a discalced Carmelite priest's information - please read the article until you reach what he said. Shortly before he died, he stopped using una cum... and he was given direct information shall we say which supports sedevacantism.

  11. p.s. This is monetizing. This is what will expand TRR. This is what ties SH and Sanborn together tinged with the fact of course that the marvelous True Restoration 'tag' works in a simple approach to the current situation.

    As I said earlier, there is no fault assigned to SH. He is merely being who he is, as is Sanborn.

    If Fr. Desposito ever does get put in place as the head of mht, I'd see that as a good sign.

    Regardless of opinions about Sanborn, the Important Announcement from April 2017 makes sense to a growing number of people, in my opinion. In fact, aside from people's visceral feelings about Sanborn and details I'm not in a position to discuss intelligently this uncompromising stand works.

    Sanborn and SH are powerful people; they are not going to be stopped and as I said, the only way I keep afloat now is to renew the interior - now no longer by choice with any help from TRR.

    Bye for now!

  12. "TRRadio is expanding, catering will occur in Florida for the first annual meeting in December, procedures for renewal are being refined, hotels arranged, drive to seminary videotaped to give people an idea, room quality vetted, etc. This is SH's thoroughness in action."

    "Sanborn and SH are powerful people; they are not going to be stopped"

    Expanding relative to what? The Satanic Temple, Planned Parenthood, Michael Voris, any Opus Dei/VC2 ministry, Joel Osteen (any protestant mega church televangelical), Martin Luther, Mao, Stalin, Marx etc. I guess are "powerful people" who "won't be stopped," but guess what: "I could not stop for death, so death kindly stopped for me." God's in charge and has the last word. Pity those who won't stop themselves but continue blindly in their fools' path insisting on dragging others along w/them--for their eternity in hell.

    SH has thrown a lot of business Sanborn's way (not to mention seminarians--as has Dolan); however, he should know when he has put his service to something unworthy. Perhaps he is being paid and staying in it for the money (?). Surely he should know ends don't justify the means. Really can't trust the judgment of someone who could be fooled by Cekada and Dolan (and Sanborn after a longer while).

    PS Is your bro one of the seminarians at MHT?

    1. TRR is the counterpart to the old Izvestia, i.e., it's the propaganda organ of a moribund organization. The worst thing they did was to throw all their eggs into the SW Ohio-Swampland cult basket. The "Roman Catholic Institute" is going nowhere, and $GG is sinking fast. These people don't need to be stopped. It's already all over for them.

    2. Anonymous, 10:01 AM, well said! (And, of course, the Reader – as always!). Yes, let us remind “Nandarani33” that if “TRR is expanding,” so does intestinal methane (and in a strikingly similar fashion, we might add). if N33 has a high opinion of SH, she is entitled to it. But we have ours too – and it’s nowhere close to hers. And our opinion is that SH is not so much misled by Dannie and Big Don, as he is one of their “creatures.” (In fact, we’ll bet the farm on that!) Also, we’re beginning to agree with Ananymous’s line of thinking: that “N33” either may have a seminarian brother at Big Don’s puppy mill – or (“just maybe”) that “N33” may not be what “she” represents “herself” to be. Whoever (or whatever) you are, N33, your “message” so far has been far from clear -- “mixed” at best. Could you be more straightforward (ands less ambiguous and cryptic) from here on -- because, up to now, much of what you’ve said hasn’t made much sense.

    3. I am grateful The Watcher wrote that - I was thinking exactly the same thing and several times I started to write a similar reply but you said it so much better.

  13. My name has to be legally that until I arrive at the mainland. My real first name is Nancy. The 33 is not masonic but is because of the 33 in the number of years Christ lived. Also the Holy Trinity and because 3 has always been my favorite number.

    I am not Indian. I have been very affected by the saddest picture I ever expect to see, which is in this link. It looks as though something else is going on that is in play - I knew about it but ran across this yesterday. Now more to add to the plate of research for the mainland but have my eye on a place already.

    As for misgivings about me...I know I appear one way but it's the opposite of how I actually am. ;D That's a cross ;)

    Scroll down and look at the picture of the three men:

  14. By 'opposite' I mean: my favorite animal was historically the rabbit. I am in reality a very timid soul who would prefer to say absolutely nothing and remain hidden from view - a kind of non-participation pact with life. But that's been impossible - you cannot teach for example without speech.

    Posting on this site raises my tension level to 8 or 9 on a 10 point scale as you can see bec I remained anonymous for so long. ;)

    So being misunderstood is what it is.

    About the picture seems to me that the person in the middle knows a lot about the 8th mystery the Crowning with Thorns.

    Seeing his picture will forever be a kind of touchstone for me - I enlarged the page to look into his eyes.

    What Fr. Khoat says about his eye of humility and suffering - there's a quote somewhere and about how the eyes haunt him works for me.

    To me, this represents a true to life way of seeing all the complexities of dealing with ways people have found to cope - at least for me, it has the ring of authenticity.

    There are other sites around of course. On one, yesterday, found some kind of information concerning Abp. Lefebvre's own lineage and calling it into question. This evidently had something to do with a masonic predecessor somewhere in it. I only place that out here in case someone else wants to research. I'm not interested in following up with the research myself.

    God bless you.

    1. Nandarani, your two posts do nothing to change what I said in my last reply. (In fact, anything from the “christor chaos” website makes me even more suspicious. I would like to believe that you are what you say you are – but, alas, I cannot.

  15. Don't know if it's correct but,I have read that St.Peter is the pontiff during an interregnum.
    I don't say who's right or wrong but I can't imagine not receiving sacraments during my life especially extreme Unction and confession.(if I am blessed enough to have a "deathbed")
    If you're home alone,SSPX/FSSP, Sede,etc..we should all try and unite as much as possible.