Saturday, August 19, 2017

IN ENDLESS ERROR HURL'D

He who can take no interest in what is small will take false interest in what is great. Ruskin

There's one trait that marks true professionals in every corner of the world:
THEY SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF.
From medicine to movie production, it's attention to apparently minor details that makes the difference between amateurism and greatness.

For that reason, we Readers are always on the lookout for the cult masters' blunders, the telltale emblems of their masquerade. Many of their howlers we pass over in silence. But the goofs that cry out loudly against the sede "clergy's" unprofessionalism — that convict them of carelessness and malformation —will always find a place on these pages. To the extent that, in life, the little things really do matter, the faithful have a right to know into whose hands they've (mis)placed their spiritual welfare.

Last week's SW Ohio cult bulletin delivered a classic example of sede incompetence at its worst, one that calls for extended analysis. On the front page of $GG's August 13 Pentecost X bulletin, right beneath the Missal-setting notice for the next week, we came across this odd, "orphan" notation (emphasis ours):
In Greek, the tax collector uses the definite article in describing himself as “the” sinner! He chooses the lowest place and humbly offers himself to God in his lowliness; Jesus exalts him (Lk 14:11 [!]).    
We say "orphan" because the italicized snippet, which reads so disjointedly out of place, bears no caption.

The second anomaly that caught our attention was the blurb's embarrassing conflation (= confusion?) of two separate parables of Jesus, viz., (1) the "Parable of the Last Seat" in chapter 14 of Luke (the Gospel pericope for the 16th Sunday after Pentecost, which will occur on Sept. 24 of this year [!]) and (2) the "Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican" in the same Evangelist's chapter 18 (the Gospel pericope for the 10th Sunday after Pentecost, which fell on Aug. 13, the date of the  $GG bulletin).

A cursory glance at the two Lucan chapters will remind you that in chapter 18, the tax-gatherer — remaining in the temple and not attending a supper —is described as "standing afar off," which verbally is not the same thing as choosing the "lowest place" at the dinner table.*

Moreover, in Luke 14, Jesus, after observing how his unmannerly fellow guests at the Sabbath dinner "chose the first seats at the table" (in Gk., πρωτοκλισία = "place of honor at a dinner"), takes advantage of their boorishness to make a point about the Kingdom of God. It's important to remark that the Gospel setting of Luke 14 makes no mention at all of an individual in attendance at the dinner who actually  "chooses the lowest place and humbly offers himself to God in his lowliness."  That's cult fiction. (As anyone with some Greek will tell you, Christ's advice at 14:10 "to sit down in the lowest place" is joined to a clause of future contingency.) A competent commentary might say the lesson to be drawn from what appears on the surface to be instruction about table-manners is that God invites to the Kingdom those who acknowledge their lowliness. But that's something different from the bulletin's assertion that the revenue officer selected "the lowest place."

Where this scandalous mixup came from is anybody's guess. It's hard to imagine the cult got it, as printed in the bulletin, from any reputable source.  You could surmise an $GG idiot might have found in some commentary a note about the individualizing use of the Greek definite article at 18:13 (what some grammarians term the par excellence usage), and then, perhaps after looking away from the copy for a moment, mistakenly inserted the reference to 14:11 after he returned to copying from his source.  In fairness — and PL is always fair — we'll grant it's possible both parables could've been discussed together, since each concludes with the identical logion, viz., "because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled etc." at 14:11 and 18:14.

But parablepsis facilitated by homoeoteleuton doesn't explain where $GG got the wrongheaded notion about the tax-collector's choosing "the lowest place." That's patently fictitious, and we doubt the error came from an authoritative source. It smells like the sloppy work of a lazy cult ignoramus thoughtlessly condensing his source material to fit into the space available. (Maybe that's also why there was no caption???)

Defenders of the cult might argue the flub was the fault of a semi-literate lay compiler of the bulletin. But, then, why didn't the $GG fake clergy catch this serious blooper before going to print?  Don't the cult's theologasters proofread the bulletin, at least the portions dealing with Sacred Scripture?  Since Protestants often criticize Catholics about their knowledge of the Bible, you'd think the sedes would be especially conscientious about making sure their scriptural references were 100% accurate.

Or did this giant boo-boo come from the imitation clergy in the first place?

Whatever the answer, long years of following this and other blogs have proved to you that cult sedes are not skilled professionals. What kind of professional would perversely mistranslate infallible papal teaching? What professional would have made such errors as PL brought to light out of that darkling mess Work of Human Hands.  What professional Catholic organization would have published an ordo so filled with mistakes that it took PL a year to cover them? What professional would have occasioned this exposé from the Readers? But in Tradistan, professionalism counts for zilch, zip, zero, nada. The depraved cult zombies are so clueless they don't even notice flagrant mistakes, nor do they care to learn the truth from better-schooled heads.

The Readers guess today's erroneous tidbit found it way into the bulletin because someone wanted (A) to impress the gullible Gerties with a faux-learned reference to the koinē text and (B), probably, to suggest that cultlings put themselves last and the grasping "clergy" first. The result was neither the edification of the faithful nor good P.R. for the cult masters. It's a horrible mishmash of the New Testament at which any thrush-infected pulpit-thumper from a storefront Bible-belt "cathedral" would twang in anti-papist derision.

If the SW Ohio cult can't manage to summarize the Word of God correctly in a tiny bulletin item, how can traditional Catholic laity trust the cult masters in the large matters of faith and morals? Getting the minutiae right is a warrant that someone can handle the big stuff. Disraeli was wrong: small things affect great minds. That's why the little stuff matters ever so much to professionals. It's proof they have the skills and knowledge to deliver what you're paying for.

It was bad enough when Tony Baloney wrongly altered the sense of Pius XII 's teaching in Sacramentum Ordinis (click here, see VI-VIII). Now someone at the cult is altering the content of Christ's very words. If the gross error featured in today's post were only one of a kind, then we'd be wrong to harp on it. But it isn't.

 Everybody in TradWorld knows it isn't. **

MAKE YOUR ESCAPE FROM THE TRADISTANI GHETTO TODAY!

*And the Greek isn't close either: μακρόθεν ἑστὼς is certainly not ἀνάπεσε εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον. Nor is the Latin: a longe stans  ≠  recumbe in novissimo loco

** If you still think we've been too harsh in our judgment of the sede sub-sub-amateurs, — and we know some of you do — then ask yourself why, with Checkie's library "filled with scholarly books"(which you'll recall the YAGGIES visited on Cheeseball's boring tour of the cult center), couldn't $GG have printed something with the same message but without the error?  Take our word for it: there's no end to professional English-language commentaries on "the" special sinner of Luke 18:13, even from the years before an approved popular Catholic translation printed "the sinner" (Confraternity) rather than "a sinner" (Douay Rheims).

For instance, in his 1906 The Gospels of the Sundays and Festivals (which contained both the Greek and Latin pericopes for the priests of yesteryear who could read both languages), Cornelius J. Canon Ryan wrote the following:
... the publican ... directs attention to his own sins only. He says: "Be propitious to me, a sinner," or as it is still more forcibly put in the Greek: "Be propitious to me, the sinner." The pharisee considered himself alone in a class: he was the saint, and all others were sinners. On the contrary, ... the publican in his appeal to God calls himself "the sinner,' the transgressor by excellence, in comparison with whom all others are just (vol. ii, p. 217).
Now, then, all $GG would've had to do is add a caption, say, NOTE ON TODAY'S GOSPEL, and they'd've had a professional bulletin entry. So close, yet soooo far.


82 comments:

  1. What I get from this is that, even though there are FAR worse problems in the Novus Ordo, SSPX, Eastern rote Novus Ordo, and Indult, let's VEHEMENTLY FOCUS ON and try to CRUSH all sedes EVERYWHERE who are far less in number but especially hated!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are problems everywhere, but especially with the sedes. They have no business passing themselves off as Catholic clergy, and it's time Catholics stop giving them a pass.

      Delete
    2. No, "especially with the sedes" simply shows your hatred of them, because objectively the other trads are heretical and the sedes are not. Get real. You have an obvious vendetta.

      Delete
    3. No, it is not "especially" with the sedes. Errors against the faith take precedence, and you are obviously hatefully against all sedes when they have retained the Faith.

      Delete
    4. "[O]bjectively the other trads are heretical and the sedes are not"???

      What have you been smoking?

      Delete
    5. List the heretical points of the sedes, then.

      Delete
    6. We're laughing at your ridiculous generalization.

      Delete
    7. Come on, just answer the heretical points of the sedes IF you have them!

      Delete
    8. That has nothing to do with our rhetorical question to you and our reason for laughing at your adolescent assertion.

      Look, we're not going to continue sparring with you. Suffice it to say that in our book the sede cults do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, so we don't give a hoot about whether they're heretical or not. They don't count. They need to close down.

      Delete
    9. What you just said is INCREDIBLY non-traditional and hateful. If you find no heretical doctrine in them, why are you not condemning the SSPX, Indult, Easten rite NO, and Novus Ordo? Why are you focusing obsessively and manically on the minority sedes as if they are the HUGEST danger? Simply because of revenge.

      Delete
    10. No revenge. Just the holy desire to clean the Augean stables of TradWorld. BTW, the non-Catholic SW Ohio-B'ville cult cabal is a huge danger. Just read our back posts.

      Delete
    11. In re: Anonymous 8/19/17, to me this sounds like SHeiner and I only say that because of the intensity of the language.

      When I wrote a little back and forth with him after completing the survey to help TRR going forward into a new season for them, he wrote '...they will have a lot to answer for' referring to judgment. He knows all about PL and TLP (of course I had been gullible at the time enough to wonder whether he did). 'We have confidence in our clergy...' and I cannot remember any more - it was the criticizing of clergy that got to him. Clergy as he deems his circle of contributors.

      I've been away from this site for quite some time and have no ability to be a critic even at the remove of only being a TRR (former) member... yet I fully agree with Eric Hoyle's Confessional Jurisdiction - I admire that work immensely. It really does make it clear to me the situation and it is dismal.

      But.. a ray of light from PL which had I not returned here wouldn't have run across.

      The site is still helping me the protestant-born. Landed on the Eastern rite option discussion first upon return to reading. Quite interesting and surprising - especially the Syro-Malankara Church of which it is said 'have kept out conciliar influences completely.' Getting closer to move from Honolulu; not even an Eastern rite parish here any more evidently.

      Delete
  2. Frankly I couldn't follow what the "beef" was this week - I thought "definite article" - good point ! Then as I followed your argument I saw I had skimmed the second part of the offending quotation which erroneously conflates the two parables - well spotted !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, 8:47.

      We know today's post is complex. The editorial team debated long and hard about how to treat it: In depth or obvious? We decided on an in-depth analysis despite the intricate argument in order to demonstrate how utterly incompetent the cult masters are.

      After all, what kind of Christian organization can't get two parables straight in a weekly bulletin? Sure, depending on how you count them, there are anywhere from 35 to 72 parables in the Gospels, and maybe it's hard to keep them separate if somone's a malformed sede. But at least they could take the time to check the sacred text. It can't be that hard, even for a cult-addled sede.

      Delete
    2. Oh no ! I was just too quick in reading the quotation from the "weather report's" bulletin - you are completely correct ! (At first) I didn't catch the egregious conflation of two different parables.

      You are also right that this isn't petty stuff - if they can't get Our Lord's words right - are they getting anything right ?

      Delete
    3. Precisely! How can anyone seriously entertain the cult's una-cum obsession when they make mistakes like this. It's a sovereign indicator of dreadful training and unprofessionalism.

      Delete
    4. Yes to 8:47 pm - 'well spotted.' ... and it IS important.

      Delete
  3. Yaaaaaawwwwwwwn

    Homines libenter quod volunt credunt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You did mean to type "Homines libenter id quod volunt credunt," didn't you?

      And you might like to know for future reference that Julius Caesar's original word order is "...[fere] libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (BG, iii.18.7, in the Teubner edition by Seel.)

      Delete
    2. You just proved his point.

      Your insistence on this nit picking IS eroding my esteem of your little crusade in my mind every time I read it.

      You clearly have no perspective. Typical novus ordo "clergy" issue heretical and just plain stupid howlers all the time, and 4 of the 7 FSSP "trad" clergy I've heard sermons from have uttered little better from their pulpits.

      The problem with SGG is not their grammar anyway, it's the things that really mater, like are the good men or are they charlatans?

      Delete
  4. Why aren't you focusing on somethimg of actual import relatimg to the trad movememt? No offense, but this seems awfully petty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This IS important to the trad movement. If a trad group represents itself as Roman Catholic and can't get two parables straight, then that's a big, big problem. How can they get the big stuff right if they mix up Scripture.

      It goes to the heart of confidence in their ability to minister to Catholics.

      Delete
    2. Let's put it another way - in a Baptist Church (where their pastors are supposed to know their Koine Greek and their Scriptures - and have real degrees from accredited seminaries - they would have been out on their ear after a mistake as egregious as this.)

      Should we say "Thank God they're not Baptists!" (but as Dannie told us they do at least tithe, but though they don't Vespers a la Checkie, they do know their Scriptures and it was Pius XII who encouraged Catholics to deepen our understanding of the Scriptures.

      With scholarship as poor as this who edits that Dannie Rag ?

      Delete
    3. You have turned the principle on its head. The principle about being faithful to that which is small has nothing to do with making small mistakes. You have just made a mole hill into a mountain. "Look, he made a small mistake! LOL! that means he is incompetent in greater things!"

      It sounds like you took the small bus to school (the times you didn't miss it).

      Delete
    4. No, it's you who missed the bus. What we uncovered was a mountain that seemed to be a molehill. Or better yet, we revealed the massive iceberg beneath the tip.

      What $GG did was no small mistake, and it is by no means the only mistake of its kind. It's part of a pattern that we have assiduously exposed.

      If your doctor made a similar error in diagnosis, you would have lost all faith in his or her ability to care for your health. If the cult can't get Scripture right, no reasonable Catholic can believe their theories about the Sedevacante or una-cum Masses.

      Delete
    5. To all the “Anonymouses” (perhaps the same one?) who claim that Pistrina is “nitpicking” or “making a mountain out of a mole-hill” with its article. As usual, you ignored the article’s point: that if Dannie et al get the “little things” wrong, how can one trust their judgment on “the big things”? And one can’t, because they will invariably get those big things wrong too – which they habitually do. Of course, “getting it wrong” and lying go hand in hand. That being said, another good “corollary” is this: If they lie about ‘he “little things,” they’ll lie about the “big” things” – and they’ve shown themselves to be liars dozens of times. (For one such example of their lying, see the following:
      http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2011/03/pristine-example-of-hypocrisy_06.html)

      There are several other examples of their lying (that we know of), and probably even more (that we don’t know of); and if “Anonymous” has been a regular reader of PL and LP, he will have found many of them already. But if not, we invite him to do so. Unless otherwise specified, lying is Dannie’s “default setting.”

      Another thing that istrina’s article brought out was Dannie exposing his utter ignorance whenever he pretends to be “erudite.” This is also Tony’s trouble too. They’re a couple of “sow’s ears” trying to pass themselves off as “silk purses.” Every time they try to pass themselves off as “scholars,” they fall completely on their faces. Why can't all these "Anonymous" see this?

      Delete
    6. @Watcher

      You often accuse the anon’s of being the same person. I am one of the anons. I don’t personally know anybody else, but see lots of other anon comments so I can assure you there are at least two.

      Delete
    7. Anon 11:14,
      The $GG/Swampland Syndicate have Pius XII, for starters, as their favorite cardboard pope, if I may borrow the phrase. Of course, Pius XII is useful when one wants to pick and choose between a midnight or a three hour Communion fast; or when a mixed choir is simply more convenient. The cult masters are too busy pope-sifting through feast days, like St. Joseph the Worker, to improve their knowledge of Sacred Scripture. They would not dare lower themselves to take to heart the words and exhortations of Pius XII who was barely a pope in their eyes. No, their time is much better spent telling their cult devotees to reject that which was given by the Church.

      Delete
    8. Praise God for telling the truth about Pius XII and the after Midnight Holy Commnion fast being mutilated to 3 hours!!
      Our chapel ignores every "change" from 1951-1958.
      Good job,we need more like my friend.

      Delete
  5. Excuse me sirs but in my culture it is forbidden to act to the clergy in this style. I am interested in investigation of vacancy. Is this correct place to look? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The men whom we criticize are not clergy. They are religious adventurers who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church.

      This site is a warning to traditional Catholics to avoid malformed, fake clergy. It is not a blog to discuss whether the vacancy exists or not.

      Delete
    2. The Reader writes here:
      "It is not a blog to discuss whether the vacancy exists or not."

      and 12 minutes later he writes:
      "no reasonable Catholic can believe their theories about the Sedevacante"

      Can't make up your mind?

      Delete
    3. Yes, missionary priests are considered clergy. Wandering bishops of old were also considered clergy, and were not ridiculed or condemned like you are doing on this site. So they are not fake, if they were considered clergy.

      Clergy in the early Church were not schooled in a seminary. The standards increased over time. The clergy of today who are missionary and wandering exceed the learning of the clergy of the early Church. So, they are not "malformed", they may, at most, fall short of the higher standards imposed by human law. You are doing a great disservice to Catholics with you mistake about this, and turning people into home-aloners.

      Delete
    4. 8:49

      There's no inconsistency between the statements. Also note that our remark occurred as a response to a comment and not in a weekly post, where the themes of this blog are aired.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous August 20, 2017 at 9:40 AM:

      Missionary priests and certain wandering bishops of old were considered clergy because they were clergy.
      The vagrants in question though aren't commissioned by any Church authority, therefore they aren't clergy.

      Delete
    6. 9:40

      1. The sedes are neither Roman Catholic priests nor missionaries acting with a commission from the Church. They are laymen with illicit and sometimes invalid or dubious orders.

      2. The term "wandering bishops" has a different meaning in modern times, where it does not refer to a legitimate bishop who lost his see owing to infidel conquest. Today episcopi vagantes is "[t]he name given to persons who have been consecrated bishop in an irregular or clandestine manner or who, having been regularly consecrated, have been excommunicated by the Church that consecrated them and are in communion with no recognized see" (Cross & Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford U.P., 1997).

      We've made no mistake about the educational standards. You see, all of us come from a time when clergy, especially missionary clergy, were well formed. (You might want to investigate the high standards demanded by the Propaganda in the 19th and 20th centuries.) The expediencies practiced centuries ago were only tolerated, and the Church endeavored to correct those deficiencies by quickly establishing seminaries in mission territories.

      Contrary to your view, we are doing the faithful a great service. You're forgetting that the sede groups advertise their seminaries as "Tridentine," with all the high standards the adjective implies. For instance, Tradzilla wrote (http://www.traditionalmass.org/seminary/) that "Most Holy Trinity Seminary is organized as a center for the training of Roman Catholic priests according to pre-Vatican II standards." So, they better live up to all their hype, and when they don't, the Readers will be there.

      BTW, the faithful are better home alone than with a group that can't keep two parables of our Lord straight.

      Delete
    7. So, you reference a Protestant book about the Church! I can reject that out of hand.

      Furthermore, you are in error about "wandering bishops" (as you try to number your points to look oh-so-very-authoritative). The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908 says that there were a host of wandering bishops in the early Church, and they DID NOT HAVE TITLES to a See, which means they never had a see. They were considered Catholic clergy nevertheless.

      So, your "team" at PL flubbed big-time, not only in allowing reference to Protestant books, but to be in error about wandering bishops....and in error about sede clergy you mock, deride and ridicule like a bunch of banshees.

      Nor have you made your case about training. That which is less good, is still good, even if you know what better and best means. The Church never allowed bad training in any age, yet Her clergy at times had little to no seminary training. Bp. Sanborn's seminary training will run rings around the very Eastern Rite Novus Ordo clergy you promote here at PL!

      Delete
    8. To say that a scholarly authority is of no value because it was authored by Protestants is ignorance of the worst sort.

      We weren't in error about "wandering bishops," but you're right that we didn't mention all the classes of episcopi vagantes, especially those in the early Church. We just referenced the class we thought our correspondent had in mind. We didn't want to extend a brief reply to a comment with a lengthy dissertation on a complex historical subject. After all, this is the comments.

      As for your remark that "the Church never allowed bad training in any age," you need to study the reasons motivating the reforms at the Council of Trent.

      Lastly, the Eastern Rite clergy we know would never skip the consecration at Mass as did one of the MHT completers. We can assure you that those sad sacks at the Pesthouse aren't even in the same league as the genuine Eastern-rite priests we know.

      Delete
    9. No, I clearly didn't say the Protestant authority is of no value. I said I can reject it out of hand. Everyone knows that it being Protestant, on a matter of religion, casts immediate doubt upon it, meaning it may or may not be true or accurate, and that it is completely warranted upon that doubt for a Catholic to reject into consideration at a given moment.

      Your apology is worthless, and merely shows that your error about wandering bishops was even worse than mere ignorance of a fact. You are trying to say now that you KNEW there were wandering bishops without title, but instead mentioned only the ones that did! Which clearly is uncalled for considering the trad bishops today never had title. Don't go into denial in front of us all, it is quite embarassing seeing you try to squirm your way out of what you cannot. The FACT is, wandering bishops historically were Catholic clergy and considered legitimate, even upon the consecration by an already legitimate bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Thuc (particularly the latter) had the authority to consecrate and ordain, particularly in this age of apostasy. And if YOU think that a true pope can be in office as this is happening, your own reason and Faith becoming questionable. The Easter rite are Novus Ordo heretics who cannot even see that a true pope cannot be in office with what has been being fed the Catholic world for the last generation.

      Delete
    10. Please note that we didn't apologize or squirm our way out of it. We simply agreed that our answer did not express the completeness of our knowledge, for reasons of expediency in responding to a comment.

      And we remind you again that no sede "bishop" is legitimate. The wandering bishops you refer to have nothing to do with the wandering bishops of today.

      Delete
  6. What I will never understand is how these priests, two in particular, can criticize other priests, religious, lay people, etc. In a public manner, but then their blinded followers come to their defense as soon as anyone criticizes them. I believe this site is criticizing the "actions" of the priests involved.

    SSPX is a favorite of Sanborn's to go after and pick apart every action. At one point, and I understand this is no longer, Sanborn spreading along that another priest stole from him by opening a fund with a similar name to his own church isn't criticizing or creating slander?

    Having a life size figure of Bergolio to put clown noses and take pictures isn't criticizing? Telling many people that they aren't educated enough to have an opinion on Schiavo isn't criticizing? Personally attacking anyone who disagrees with him isn't criticizing?

    Why can't these priests, and especially a bishop, take their own advice and stop slandering and criticizing others? Why can't he stop writing nasty newsletters on sodomy and just focus on giving people sacraments? People reading the pornographic newsletters he writes have already left the mainstream church, he doesn't need to keep slamming them by writing how awful they are every month. Instead, he continues to waste his time month after month picking apart every action (same thing people are accusing this site of doing, yet see nothing wrong with an actual RELIGIOUS doing).

    I don't think I will ever understand why the defenders of these men read this site. I won't undertand how they can dismiss Cekada and Sanborn's actions as we should never criticize a priest, yet go on to support priests who criticize priests? How their followers defend priests who lack a basic charity towards others? Instead of criticizing people who inform others of the Noncatholic ways of these priests, why not ask yourself why these priests are behaving in this way? Why not tell your priests to focus on sacraments snd stop the foolish podcasts, you tube channels, and pornographic monthly newsletters? Why don't you stop your priests when they are critcizing another religious? Why don't you tell them you will stop financially supporting them until they act like Catholics?

    This site isn't going to stop informing people of these men. So, you, as you see it, can avoid reading it. What you can do is stop your financial contributions to your religious until they stop their uncharity, their slander of others, their criticism of others, and their detraction of others. I promise you this, without your financial support, they will stop. If their goal was only to give sacraments, than they wouldn't be creating scandals within their own churches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a “defender of these men” I sometimes read this site and occasionally comment on it in order to provide balance, truth, and reality to this completely slanted propaganda site so that outsiders might realize SGG is not quite the spawn of all that is evil as PL and The Watcher would like everybody to believe.


      Since I don’t have a fantasy view on the world I can defend these men without pretending they are perfect, better than Saints, and without fault. I would agree that any personal attacks are wrong and not how things should be done, but I also understand that all human men will have faults and are not perfect. I also am able to defend A, B, & D while agreeing that C was wrong or incorrect.


      Clearly when you make statements like “pornographic monthly newsletters” you are one of the PL cult followers in that you are truly an ALL or NOTHING person and have gone to PL’s level of ludicrousness in making every little thing into some big deal that also must have an evil intent.


      The priests at SGG are no different than the priests of the SSPX, NO, or any priest of the last 2000 years in that they are all fallible men, commit sin, have personality issues, make mistakes, and more. To pretend the past was somehow different is pure fantasy. Actually the SGG priest are much holier and better men than many of the past. LOL I would like to see PL back in the day when many Bishop Positions were essentially bought by completely unqualified people, children were elected to pope, and more; although PL likes to pretend that everything was squeaky clean and perfect before VII and there were practically no sinners.

      Delete
    2. Where are your comments about Dolan's animal torture stories? You 'defenders' only rush to respond when there's a post like this which is too scholarly for you to understand and so you claim it's unimportant. Holy and "better" men don't put animal torture stories in the weekly church bulletin nor stand by while their supposed bishop does so--nor does any congregation. Why do you put up with it?

      Delete
  7. I couldn't stop laughing at the story of the usher at sgg who got his grannie panties in a bunch over his moronic son being criticized and because the head usher was gruff with him.ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m pretty sure the usher you speak of no longer goes by that name, but is now THE WATCHER. I am basing that mostly upon The Watchers obsession with the Schiavo case.

      Delete
    2. Ditto here. I figured it out that way, too.

      Delete
  8. @The Reader
    Thank you so much for these revelations about incompetent clergy! You are so very intelligent! We talk about papal encyclicals, the work of the councils, teaching of the theologians, wisdom and holiness of the saints etc. but does any of this compare to the importance of your work in exposing mistakes of sedevacantist clergy? Not by half it doesn't! You are glistening with erudition and good will! Your work is most probably the most important work ever done by laymen for the Church! Your selfless acts in this regard, devoid of any and all self-interest or unworthy motivation, will surely reap you a tremendous reward. What would we do without you, o esteemed and loved, smartest and most humble men who have ever lived!? You are my heroes, The Reader! :) YOU COMPLETE ME!!! :3 Jus' wuv you to bits! :)))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We see the sarcasm, but that doesn't make your message any less true.

      Delete
  9. The Reader@ 1:40 PM
    The evidence points squarely to Anonymous @ 11:58 AM being a hideous liar.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For those that keep saying not to criticize the priests, I ask you to ask your own cult leaders the same. Have your priests and bishops pray for all those they publicly criticize. Have them stop criticizing their parishioners, and instead, ask them to pray for them. Ask them to stop criticizing other priests. Ask them to behave like Holy men, so no one would have anything to criticize. If those men behaved according to their station, this site would not exist.

    And for you PL, has the same immature person who hacked this site weeks ago at it again? I'm seeing the same immaturity with some of the current posts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Anonymous 2:37 pm
    I agree with you, everyone should be praying and sacrificing for each other, but perhaps youngsters are following the lead of their elders insofar immaturity re: assigning derogatory nicknames for the clergy they don't like and referring to their seminary using an insulting term. So why don't you get off your high horse and realize that speeches like yours don't quite resonate when ad homimem attacks are the order of the day on this blog - worst offender is The Watcher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many time must we repeat that these men are not clergy and the pesthouse is not a seminary.

      BTW, the nicknames are not derogatory: they're spot-on accurate.

      Delete
    2. Anon 2:37 here, I was pointing out that you can't criticize pl for doing the same thing that your own priests are doing. They don't get a free pass just because they are religious, and in all reality, they should be held to a higher standard.

      I keep reading people tell pl to pray for these men and not point out the faults of the religious. So, maybe tell the religious to pray and stop pointing out faults of others. If they want people to follow their example, maybe they should be the example.

      Delete
    3. @ Reader

      “the nicknames are not derogatory”…how can you even “say that” with a straight face.

      You can repeat as much as you want about the Clergy thing, but that doesn’t mean you are correct. The sede position is not exactly well documented and thus there will be disagreements on various nuances of the position since what is happening in the church right now is unprecedented in history.

      Even if your positions were correct, regardless of them being clergy or not, you should not speak in the way you do about ANYBODY. I am not saying you can’t disagree and even point out things about others position you feel are in error, but you do so in a most uncharitable manner that any Catholic after the age of reason inherently knows is wrong. Would you speak the same way with Jesus in the room? I don’t think so. It is a saying used a lot, but it does bring quick clarity to many things.

      Let’s examine two ways to say the same thing. The first is a decent way of disagreeing and even pointing out another error. The second is how PL typically would do it.


      1. Fred is incorrect in his position on X because of reason Y and Z. Also we feel Fred’s treatment of subject A is not proper and should be different due to B and C.


      2. Fred aka Zit Face AHoleZilla, is a total incompetent Moron with his slimy pretend made up con artist position on X because any idiot with graduate level training can clearly see Y and Z. Zit Face AHoleZilla’s laughable and utterly incompetent treatment of subject A shows just how horrible it is and due to B and C should have been done differently which any priest in the past would know as pre VII all priests had PHD level knowledge in theology with 160 IQ’s and thus AHoleZilla would have been kicked to the curb long ago.

      Both 1 and 2 may be about the same thing, but 2 is done in a disrespectful, uncharitable, sinful manner. Method 1 appeals to normal well-reasoned people while method 2 appeals to gossip-mongers and candidates for PL’s “editorial board”.

      Delete
    4. We would feel very comfortable speaking about these men in the way we do in front of our Lord: after all, He knows their history far better than we do.

      Delete
    5. Reader August 20 at 10:30 PM

      Except that He does not speak the way you do.

      Delete
    6. Let us just say that we regard our language as the modern equivalent of "You serpents, you generation of vipers" and leave it at that!

      Delete
    7. I frequently use language much stronger than used here to describe the "tomfoolery" of the Trad movement and of myself. I am often rebuked that if "Our Lord" were here.... I always remind the rebuker in question that He is here and witnesses exactly what the people I'm talking about say and do (as He surely sees me). He w ill judge us all - forget the false appeals to Charity and recall that in describing Himself, Our Lord first said He was the "Truth" - nothing will get by that.

      Delete
  12. @ The Reader 4:14 pm

    Thank you for your reply.
    The answer to your question is that you could repeat it ad infinitum and it'd make no difference to the multitude that aren't buying what you're selling.
    Naturally you think those nicknames are absolute corkers, we'd expect no less. But my point to the other gentleman/lady is that you can hardly complain about a lack of maturity when the example being set on this blog includes immaturity/name-calling.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see you quote John Ruskin as the base principle for this blog: "He who can take no interest in what is small will take false interest in what is great"

    I am seeing a pattern that you seem to be quite partial to anti-Catholic, Protestant authors. Not a good sign.

    First of all, what Ruskin says is not necessarily true. There are many people of good conscience who are lax with small matters and still take a true interest with the greater.

    But, arguendo, let's say Ruskin happened to express a hard-and-fast rule? You, "The Reader", failed in logic to understand it. It is a modern-minded logical fallacy to think that a mistake necessarily means one is not interested, especially if there is no repetition of the mistake. (It's tough to have reached the 68-year-old mark, isn't it? There is more to expect!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the cult repeats these kinds of errors over and over.

      Delete
  14. Reader 4:14 PM

    Not all minds think alike.

    ReplyDelete
  15. However, "Great minds think alike!"

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Shadow 12:08 PM

    Not always.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One could apply the Not always scenario to anything, except the proverbial saying about "death and taxes" they are an absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "When you speak to fishermen, speak of fish."

    This blog I believe was initiated to warn the innocent fish of the sharks that swim among them.
    Unfortunately there have been many causalities before the reading audience finally got the message. Eventually they did not care how it was said, (though I must admit it was very entertaining and will written), the message was delivered, without killing the messenger.

    To those who are new to this blog, I can assure you, that your opinion is always welcomed, but not always taken. That is the beauty of Free Will.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Anonymous 9:49 AM

    Thank you for that fine example of faux-elegance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, you are quite welcome!

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is off topic, but you MUST read this ! Check out the last comment sent by Cekada to the owner of the blog and how this guy "Introibo" rips him apart!! Read the last anonymous comment sent from a friend of Cekada and Introibo's two part Reply below it! I just saw it and it's too good not to share! Please enjoy reading and let your readership know!
    https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/prayers-for-non-catholics.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right,Anonymous August 25, 2017 at 7:47 PM, this was very interesting reading.

      Delete
    2. For convenience, here is how I responded to Introibo on that other blog...

      Introibo, Fr. Cekada was trained as an ordinary priest. Fr. De Pauw had more extraordinary training for sure, but you don't denigrate a priest publicly for being ordinarily trained. Do you really know the distinction, or not? It's scandalous what you just wrote about the Charmin. Could Fr. Cekada have made a mistake? Could Fr. De Pauw have made a mistake? Yes, either or both could have.

      Now, Catholic theologians of good repute have said, before Vatican II, that a food hole directly to the stomach is extraordinary means of keeping a person alive. Don't criticize Fr. Cekada for holding what was acceptable among the Catholic clergy. Perhaps there is a case for saying it was extraordinary then, but not any longer? I have not seen a substantial case being made for that, nor has Fr. Cekada. You don't go public and suggest Fr. Cekada was for "murder". That is absolutely sinful.

      What complicated the Schiavo case was that the woman was capable of receiving sustenance through her mouth, and Fr. Cekada didn't realize that through most of the controversy. In the end he admitted that if she was capable of that, then it would have been murder to refrain from trying to give her sustenance via her mouth.

      Delete
    3. Checkie was not trained in any way close to Fr. De Pauw, who was a real priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Those early years at Écône were sub-optimal, to say the least.

      We'd say it's scandalous that you, Anonymous 11:50 AM, should mention the Cheeseball in the same breath with Fr. De Pauw. Read his Wikipedia bio and you'll see why.

      If you'd like to see how a truly well formed Catholic handled the issue of the moral limits of medical treatment, we invite you to read THIS ARTICLE.

      Delete
    4. Yet, he still passed judgment without knowing the facts, criticized others for not accepting his erroneous opinion, and only now (after the backlash of his actions) has he come to realize he might be wrong?

      Delete
    5. Nothing to say about Schiavo? Good.

      Now, why don't you go back and carefully, this time, read why both were mentioned. Apparently you don't have good comprehension. It clearly says Fr. De Pauw had higher training and Fr. C did not. Fr. C had quite ordinary training. Far more training than a simplex priest before Vatican II and he was considered clergy. For better than schismatic Orthodox and even the Catholic Church considers them clergy. Nor has the Church participated in any way of denigrating and ridiculing Anglicans or Orthodox. The Church is there for our example and you are simply not getting the message. You sound more like Martin Luther in his table talks.

      Delete
    6. We don't know if you were addressing us, but if you were, let us personally assure you Tony Baloney's training was far inferior to that of the pre-Vatican II seminaries. (His perverse translation of infallible papal teaching is just one example.)

      As one traditionalist bishop from South America has written, the academic level at Écône in the '70s was low compared with what he had received in his seminary in Argentina.

      As for "ordinary training," we wouldn't say a 1973 bachelor's from a Novus-Ordo seminary and two years — '75-'77 according to his Wikipedia entry —at Écône comes anywhere near the training priests got in the 1950s.

      As for Schiavo, we did indirectly comment with our link to Fr. Iscara's article.

      Delete
    7. To anonymous 11:50 AM: Yes, Cekada DID know that Terri Schiavo was able to swallow through her mouth “through most of the controversy”: he was informed of it by everal people. And even if he hadn’t been (which he was), he’s had ample time (over a decade) to recant his words. In other words, sir, you are a liar.

      Delete
  22. The Reader (3:53), yes, talking to you. You cannot seem to even admit when you are wrong (something you criticize clergy for, and you do it often). I mentioned De Pauw and Fr. C in "the same breath" in order to admit that Fr. C had much less, and yet you complained as if I were equating them. Just admit when you are wrong sometimes; you can grow in humility.

    Then you mention a traditional bishop, as if you accept he is a bishop, when you have already made it quite clear you don't consider them bishops.

    I don't bat an eye to hear it said that traditionalist training is "low" in comparison to pre-V2. Low is a comparison. It's a gradation of an original human standard. Even less than the SSPX standard has been positively approved of in Church history. As well I already mentioned how simplex priests are true clergy, and the Orthodox are considered clergy by the Holy Catholic Church. You just dodge good arguments and pretend you cannot be wrong. Like some fantasy of yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We aren't wrong — and we're not dodging anything. You were equating the Cheeseball and a true priest by mentioning the two together. You've no idea about what training used to be.

      Checkie may be "clergy" in the sense that Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists may be considered clergy of their false confessions, but he is not a Roman Catholic cleric as defined by the privileges and rights thereof.

      We labor under no fantasy, unlike you. Ours is a sober, hard-eyed view of the truth. Comparison is everything. You cannot compare trad formation to the past, just like you can't compare a rural community college program to an Oxford University education, except unfavorably.

      Delete
    2. Now you are going into denial because you cannot bear the thought of your being mistaken. Look at the original, and you see that I mentioned Fr. C having "ordinary" training and Fr. De Pauw having "extraordinary" training. Look at it! Now you just said that I said I was "equating" them! How does ordinary and extraordinary "equate"? They don't. Have some humility and acknowledge you made an error.

      Delete
    3. No denial. We're affirming Cheesy didn't even have ordinary training. As we pointed out, you can't even talk about the two things in the same breath. That's our point. You're the one in error.

      Delete
  23. You used the word "equate" for the concepts of ordinary & extraordinary, which don't equate. If your followers don't see that, or say nothing to you about it, that would be because they have their own cult following here.

    ReplyDelete