PL has boldly conjectured no expense will be spared, no ceremonial detail ignored, in staging Junior's 2018 "consecration," which has been slated for February 22. We always suspected it would be earlier in the year rather than later, but this date is much sooner than imagined: apparently no one's taking any chances with the Donster's ticker.
The transgressive occasion simply must be the most fabulous spectacle cult-addled cretins and lame-brained "clergy" have ever set their distended eyes upon! The power brokers have invited so many sede scum that we're tempted to call the event Tradnado. That's understandable: the Kid's got to make a lasting impression if he's to preserve the furiously contracting hermit kingdom following Kim Jong-Don's rushed departure from one-man rule.
The prospect of the approaching gala transition got us thinking deeply.
The Swampland party planners — the real bosses of fetid B'ville —must be as aware as the Readers are of the trumpeting elephant in the claustrophobic sede room:
It is by no means inconceivable that a particular, highly motivated, unusually intelligent, and supremely self-disciplined enemy of the Church might do everything in his power to destroy her from within. And what better way is there than to compromise the validity of the sacrament of orders by making an act of the will not to ordain?
The Swampland party planners — the real bosses of fetid B'ville —must be as aware as the Readers are of the trumpeting elephant in the claustrophobic sede room:
Big Don's Liénart-spoiled priestly orders.The standard argument that wearing pontificals, using the Church's liturgical books, and performing the rite competently establish the presumption of an ordaining bishop's sufficient sacramental intention to confect holy orders may not entirely put at ease the vested interests bankrolling the subtropical fenland.
It is by no means inconceivable that a particular, highly motivated, unusually intelligent, and supremely self-disciplined enemy of the Church might do everything in his power to destroy her from within. And what better way is there than to compromise the validity of the sacrament of orders by making an act of the will not to ordain?
N.B. This case is far different from presuming every Masonic bishop always withholds proper intention, a proposition that's patently uninformed. Our supposition derives from a prudent fear, based on cognitive psychology and life experience, that one radicalized, rogue bishop, aggressively committed to furthering the ends of satanic Freemasonry, might have made it a point to will not to do what the Church does each time he conferred orders.Whether Liénart in fact harbored such diabolical resolve is impossible to determine with certainty based on the information currently available to us. But from what's been reported about the man, that frame of mind remains strongly plausible. The Liénart-line's threat to validity, then, while probably small at present, is not negligible. And who knows what complacency-shattering disclosures may be forthcoming? It seems, therefore, the safest path for the Boy-"Bishop's" protectors would be — on the off-chance that anything of substance regarding Liénart's fanaticism¶ should come to light in the decades ahead — to extract every sliver of doubt, no matter how slight it may seem at the moment.
To our way of thinking, it is unimaginable to believe the
Kid's minders haven't given some consideration to assuring his "episcopal" orders are as bulletproof as they can be.† Right now, Junior's among the very few in Tradistan U.S.A. who have a reliable line for their priestly orders‡: Pierre
Martin Ngô Đình Thục ➤ Michel-Louis Guérard des
Lauriers (ordained priest 1931 by Rasneur) ➤ Robert Fidelis McKenna (ordained priest 1958 by Cicognani).§
Between McKenna and the Kid, there's no Liénart-tinged interloper to impugn his orders' validity. If you affirm Thục's consecration of des Lauriers was valid, then it's fairly certain the former professor at Le Saulchoir and the Lateran University didn't make any mistakes in conferring a valid "episcopacy" upon his brother Dominican.
Between McKenna and the Kid, there's no Liénart-tinged interloper to impugn his orders' validity. If you affirm Thục's consecration of des Lauriers was valid, then it's fairly certain the former professor at Le Saulchoir and the Lateran University didn't make any mistakes in conferring a valid "episcopacy" upon his brother Dominican.
As it stands today, if the Kid gets his orders only from Big Don, then doubts could arise in many influential quarters about
his standing as a "bishop." Those of you who've studied our "Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand,"
know the more common opinion holds that when the priesthood has not been conferred,
the episcopate cannot be validly conferred (p. 25). Thus if Achille Liénart
purposefully intended not to ordain when he conferred orders, then Marcel Lefebvre was never a priest or a bishop
and therefore never conferred the priesthood or episcopacy on anybody.
The Readers can't be the only ones
who recognize there's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the Tampa-St. Pete area to send the Liénart elephant
of invalidity to a boggy graveyard ... to give the Clone a clean start in his "episcopal career" (LOL). It's soooo easy, too: Just get a co-consecrator whose "priestly" and "episcopal" orders come from the Thục-des
Lauriers-McKenna succession.
And where, pray tell, do you find such an animal?
Well, if you want to search abroad, there's Geert Jan Stuyver, the "bishop" working with Francesco Ricossa at the Instituto Mater Boni Consilii in Italy. McKenna "ordained" him a "priest" in 1996 and conferred on him the "episcopate" in 2002. Moreover, Junior assisted at Stuyver's "consecration." (Click here for a pic.) If Stuyver were invited as a co-consecrator for the Big Show next year, he might deign to fix the Donster a couple days beforehand: that way, at the finale of the Big Show, there'd be four valid "bishops" on stage, not three (as long as "One Hand" didn't co-consecrate, that is). We're positive the rector wouldn't want to be the odd-man-out. How could he endure the snickers from all his enemies or from the Clone?
Well, if you want to search abroad, there's Geert Jan Stuyver, the "bishop" working with Francesco Ricossa at the Instituto Mater Boni Consilii in Italy. McKenna "ordained" him a "priest" in 1996 and conferred on him the "episcopate" in 2002. Moreover, Junior assisted at Stuyver's "consecration." (Click here for a pic.) If Stuyver were invited as a co-consecrator for the Big Show next year, he might deign to fix the Donster a couple days beforehand: that way, at the finale of the Big Show, there'd be four valid "bishops" on stage, not three (as long as "One Hand" didn't co-consecrate, that is). We're positive the rector wouldn't want to be the odd-man-out. How could he endure the snickers from all his enemies or from the Clone?
To be sure, the downside of this arrangement would be the public announcement of the Donster's reception of
conditional ordination and consecration: in order to silence the whispers forever, the repair job is no good unless TradWorld knows about it. Then there'd be the matter of a public ceremony, for surely the head honchos would want more than matter and form done hastily in some moldy back room. Further, it would mean that all the bums Don's "ordained" in the past would have to be re-ordained sub
conditione. And then there are all the confirmations to be
redone.
But, hey, what's a little hassle when the prize is a lock on validity for the new Boy "Bishop"?
But, hey, what's a little hassle when the prize is a lock on validity for the new Boy "Bishop"?
To be candid, we were reluctant to post our speculations. If the élite hadn't considered the possible challenge to Junior's validity, we didn't want to tell them how to make the Kid's illicit orders unimpeachable. After a few years, he might want to come roaring back on the trad scene, appealing to a sound lineage as an enticement to join his cult. However, we quickly dismissed our fears, for we honestly believe that once the Swampland enterprise closes in on itself, it will never venture out again onto the national or international sede stage as a headliner.
Empire building was the fever dream of grasping Lefebvre-wannabes like "One Hand" and the "Lowly Worm." Throughout his long, reticent apprenticeship — est et fideli tuta silentio merces — the Boy-"Bishop"-Elect has taken to heart the following lesson from the aging cult kingpins' grotesque failures:
It's too risky out in the open.
¶ Our use of this term is specialized: we've got in mind Eric Hoffer's (The True Believer) fanatic, who is vicious and destructive, content solely with the unified struggle for change leading to total upheaval.
† For your consideration, we note that in 2001, Junior chose McKenna, not "One-Hand Dan," as his ordaining "bishop." The little piece of Noh theater where the invitations advertised the Kid as O.P., but on the Mass booklet distributed at "ordination" the post-nominal initials had disappeared, smelled to us like a maneuver to avoid wounded feelings. Maybe we're overestimating them, but the élite were too savvy back then to let the Clone be compromised by anything that smacked of invalidity. For this reason, we can't see why they'd get careless now when the stakes are so much higher. Anyone who's viewed the Donster's "consecration" video, where McKenna was forced to repeat a section, will acknowledge that validity's always been on their minds. Also, let's not forget that Big Don was a signatory to the September 1990 ad-cautelam letter to Wee Dan.
‡ Unless Méndez fixed Kelly before his "consecration."
§ Sources for ordination data:
http://www.cattolicesimo.com/2015/03/02/vita-di-mons-guerard-des-lauriers-di-don-giuseppe-murro/ and http://www.dailycatholic.org/mckenttt.htm.
Empire building was the fever dream of grasping Lefebvre-wannabes like "One Hand" and the "Lowly Worm." Throughout his long, reticent apprenticeship — est et fideli tuta silentio merces — the Boy-"Bishop"-Elect has taken to heart the following lesson from the aging cult kingpins' grotesque failures:
A Sedelandia robust enough to vie with the SSPX or the FSSP is a hallucination to be put out of mind.What a folly it is to pretend sede cur runts can give the big dogs of Traddielandia a run for their money. Junior will stay small in order to survive, well away from the spotlight. In his prudently self-imposed limitation, the Boy "Bishop" will cultivate the safe and secure virtues of settlement.
It's too risky out in the open.
¶ Our use of this term is specialized: we've got in mind Eric Hoffer's (The True Believer) fanatic, who is vicious and destructive, content solely with the unified struggle for change leading to total upheaval.
† For your consideration, we note that in 2001, Junior chose McKenna, not "One-Hand Dan," as his ordaining "bishop." The little piece of Noh theater where the invitations advertised the Kid as O.P., but on the Mass booklet distributed at "ordination" the post-nominal initials had disappeared, smelled to us like a maneuver to avoid wounded feelings. Maybe we're overestimating them, but the élite were too savvy back then to let the Clone be compromised by anything that smacked of invalidity. For this reason, we can't see why they'd get careless now when the stakes are so much higher. Anyone who's viewed the Donster's "consecration" video, where McKenna was forced to repeat a section, will acknowledge that validity's always been on their minds. Also, let's not forget that Big Don was a signatory to the September 1990 ad-cautelam letter to Wee Dan.
‡ Unless Méndez fixed Kelly before his "consecration."
§ Sources for ordination data:
http://www.cattolicesimo.com/2015/03/02/vita-di-mons-guerard-des-lauriers-di-don-giuseppe-murro/ and http://www.dailycatholic.org/mckenttt.htm.
...As to your speculations/fear in re Leinert, in such case the Lefebvrian clergy may ALL be invalid?
ReplyDeleteBut the Lefebvrian/de Castro Mayerite clergy may be ok?
You misread us, friend.
DeleteWe're merely trying to get into the heads of the bosses at this key juncture.
As for us, we've no opinion on these difficult issues.
But we do understand that if you've got an investment, you might want to insure it against any possibility of injury no matter how unlikely.
Call our speculation an ecclesiastical credit default swap.
The late Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM, strongly insisted on the Lienart line's invalidity. He also wrote an interesting article available here: http://bishoplouisofm.blogspot.com/2008/03/necessity-of-internal-intention-for.html
ReplyDeleteLefebvre was also consecrated by two other gentleman. Surely they weren’t freemasons?
ReplyDeleteAs we understand it, it is his priestly ordination, not his consecration, that's problematic. Liénart ordained him a priest on Sept. 21, 1929. Therefore, if he wasn't a priest at the time of his 1947 consecration by principal consecrator Liénart, then the proper intentions of co-consecrators Fauret and Ancel would have been useless. (As we pointed out, the common opinion is that priestly orders are necessary for episcopal consecration.)
DeleteNow perhaps the danger is very low that the Mason Liénart willed not to ordain. But if we were in the Kid's shoes or his handlers', we'd want to play it completely safe. We guess they do, too. After all, since Big Don was ordained a priest by Lefebvre, there's some risk that Liénart may have withheld intention.
So, why take any chances at all? Get co-consecrators whose lines have no Liénart taint. And just to gild the lily, fix the Donster.
It's simply good insurance, that's all. Then the Boy "Bishop" can safely ignore all that stuff on the Internet.
There are no proofs of the Lienart line's invalidity, therefore the orders are valid.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, absent compelling proof, we must presume the line to be valid, albeit, if we're risk-averse, with fear and trembling. Note we never categorically said the line wasn't valid.
DeleteBut knowing what we do of Liénart, it is at least plausible that he may have withheld the requisite intention. Now maybe the danger of that is quite low, but why run any risk at all? Why not be 100% certain that the Kid's "episcopate" is protected against a future revelation?
Buying an insurance policy for an expensive cruise doesn't mean you believe you will suffer a disaster. It's a recognition that one could occur, and you just want to protect yourself. We agree it's a fact that most people don't insure their vacations and are none the worse off for having foregone the insurance. But others, equally informed of the low probability of the occurrence of an untoward event, out of prudence elect to purchase a policy. No sense in taking a chance when the cost of insuring against it is low.
Junior's "consecration" will give us an opportunity to test the cult's appetite for risk. They can roll the dice and let the Donster "consecrate" solo, or they can get at least one co-consecrator with unblemished orders as insurance.
That, to us, is a no-brainer.
What do we know about Lienart?
DeleteThe Church presumes minister's correct intention:
(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae)
“Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now if, in order to effect and confer a Sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or a non-baptized person as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.”
If they did what you are proposing, they would be making their parishioners doubt their sacred work. The Church does not work in this way.
If you read our post, you'll see we have no quibble with the presumption of validity. That said, the accounts of Liénart's Masonic affiliation and his reported deathbed statement introduce the possibility that he might have withheld intention. Maybe the risk is small, but why take a chance in this era when validity is such a concern? It's just common sense to make sure that the Kid's orders are unassailable at least from the Liénart angle.
DeleteRemember, as Gasparri wrote, ordinatio habendus est validus donec invaliditas non evincatur , i.e., we presume validity as long as invalidity hasn't been proved.
Just because we have no solid proof at the present, doesn't mean it might not materialize in the future. Therefore, right now is the time to act for safety's sake. Plus the cost is low, especially if they had planned to have a co-consecrator anyway.
As to your last paragraph, first of all, the Swampland cult is not the Church, and the Church never worked like the cult.
Second, securing a valid co-consecrator in no way would cause doubt. Indeed, we've thought for a very long time that they would have at least one co-consecrator just to make the function look more like a normal consecration since it would make the Kid look even more like a real bishop in the eyes of the cultlings.
In fact, had we not written anything, and had the cult gotten a co-consecrator or two who happened to have rock-solid orders, no one would have charged them with fomenting doubt. And Big Don wouldn't have had to be fixed either. We just threw out that scenario as a way pre-empting all the explanations about the function of a co-consecrator in the event of a future challenge.
It's better to be safe than sorry.
No, you don't understand what "presumption of validity" means. It means that you don't act on negative doubt; but you are acting on negative doubt by talking about hypothetical "possibility". Leinart is no different situation than the historical situation in France where it was found a great portion of the clergy had it's source in orders from a mason. Holy Mother Church did not talk about "better safe than sorry" because that was negative doubt and such causes harm to souls. Just like if one were to doubt his own baptism because the priest might have "possibly" made a mistake and didn't let the water flow on the skin of the head. Your whole article here is just ignorant trouble-making.
DeleteThe Readers’ analysis has nothing to do with the theology of presumption (which they stipulate!) and everything to do with a hard-headed business decision. Business is about risk management, and if a risk, although small, can be mitigated cheaply and easily, then there’s no reason not to take steps to dispose of it altogether. It’s that easy. Forget the myth that Big Don calls the shots in the Swampland. He doesn’t. Forget the myth that B’ville is the Church. It’s not. That place is run by businessmen who have invested much in the Boy-“Bishop”-Elect. The “consecration” is going to cost a bundle. Good businessmen don’t bypass an opportunity to strengthen the safety of their investment, especially when their efforts could be disguised as fidelity to liturgical law.
DeleteTalking out of both sides of your mouth. Anyone who truly understands presumption of validity, as a Catholic, does not talk about concerns of hypothetical possibility and better-safe-than-sorry. No, you don't truly presume validity. You are merely an anti-clerical scandal-monger.
DeleteBut the cultists are NOT Catholic. They're outside the Church. And since there are no real clergy in the cult either, we aren't anticlerical.
DeleteReader,
DeleteThey are IN the church. They are REAL clergy. Do you think no REAL clergy exist anymore? I’m sure glad they are willing to take on such a position in these times. They could have taken so many easier paths.
No, they are not in the Church, and they're definitely not clergy:
DeleteNO commission from the Church.
NO title.
NO office.
NO canonical rights.
NO training in an approved institution, etc., etc., etc.
BTW, the fake clergy rôle was the easiest path to a comfortable life for these ne'er-do-wells. It is doubtful whether many of them could have survived in a real job where they'd be held accountable. Easier to make it all up.
And yes we do think real clergy exist — in the Eastern rites. Real bishops included.
Yes, you are INDEED ignorant of supplied jurisdiction, and of how to use epikeia. And no wonder, because epikeia is a "virtue", as St. Thomas said. You cannot fathom it, face it. Ignorant also of the faculties Thuc had outside of his diocese to consecrate and ordain.
DeleteNobody outside the bishop of Rome is actually thrown out of the Church unless the pope does so, so even that easy discernment you couldn't even get right.
Many Eastern clergy are doubtfully valid depending upon whether their lineage goes back behind the Iron Curtain. They are in conscious governing union with apostate Rome, and they have HORRIBLE training, which is why they don't fight Vatican II, and accept Francis. So, as you drive people to apostasy, you spend your time attacking those few who have held fast to the integral Faith!
This blog is like Romper Room on stilts.
11:45 AM
Delete(1) When epieikeia = "equity," it means to do what is right and virtuous. But when as a term of art in moral theology it means that "a human law does not bind if right reason indicates that the legislator did not wish it to bind in these particular and quite concrete circumstances," then it is a principle of interpretation of human laws.
(2) Unlike the sedes we've never questioned Thục's faculties or anything else about him, so we have no idea how to respond. We have even defended his Latinity.
(3) Many sede "clergy" have doubtfully valid orders depending upon whether "One-Hand Dan" conferred their "orders."
(4) Even the most deficient Eastern rite training is certainly much less "HORRIBLE" than that found in Sedelandia.
"(2) Unlike the sedes we've never questioned Thục's faculties or anything else..."
DeleteReader~ You've stated in the recent past that "The Reader" is comprised of multiple individuals, some of which are sedevacantists. However, your language above implies that there are NO sedes among your ranks. Please explain?
Glad to.
DeleteWe do have a couple of staffers who lean toward one sede hypothesis or the other as a plausible explanation for the crisis. But they don't affirm it is a doctrine and recognize, absent the Church's declaration, that other positions may obtain. They are deeply repelled by the cult masters' arrogance and effrontery. And like everyone on staff, they are aliquid pravists — anyone who acknowledges that something is wrong in Rome is a brother or sister in the faith.
Our use of "sede" above refers to the rabid cultists of Tradistan who bring discredit to the traditionalist cause.
No wonder you're so full of "winning" ideas such as attending novus ordo eastern rite masses.
DeleteIOW, you're a species of religious liberals which I abhor. You have NO chance of convincing sedes of anything. But I thank you for revealing your true selves.
We're really quite conservative. The difference between us and you is a tolerance for ambiguity when the Church is silent.
DeletePlease note that we're not at all interested in changing the minds of sedes like you. You'll go down the sewer with the Sw Ohio/B'ville cult.
Really quite conservative, eh? In a pig's eye!
DeleteI get it. For example, you tolerate all the ambiguities contained within the documents of Vatican II.
Oh! So you're only interested in helping select souls. How very (un) Catholic of you! You serve a master from below.
I'll go down the sewer with the SW Ohio/Brooksville crowd? Funny that? So the CMRI is obviously part of those groups?
Personally, I feel the three month consecration date looks desperate. Although it has always been known he would one day become King of Selwayland, my opinion is there is something more going on than just sanborn's heart procedures. Does Sanborn desperately need money for his failing seminary? Is the church still following apart and money is needed to help keep it afloat? Does Sanborn need money to complete his cemetery asap before something happens and his high honor won't be placed in his own cemetery for everyone to adore? Do they need more money to finish their new school and convent that will be decked out to the nine? My guess is that soon after the consecration takes place, Selway senior will step up and donate some precious money that was promised as soon as his son becomes bishop. You will see many, if not all, of these projects completed soon after The boy is made bishop. Then, he will turn around and take credit for this accomplishment, citing that so many people support his consecration and wanted to donate to his cause.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis makes a lot of sense.
DeleteThere's more going on than meets the eye, that's for sure, and everything seems directed to making the new Boy "Bishop" the center of it all. That's one reason why we believe they'll have at least one co-consecrator to put the Kid beyond reproach.
This is Big Don's end of days.
Are they building a cemetery?
DeleteThe last we heard, they were. But maybe somebody with contacts in the swamp can tell us more.
DeleteCemetery is on, according to one of his newsletters. They have the design and just need the money. One of his old timers will most likely give up the money if Selway Sr. doesn't fork it over after his son gets his miter.
ReplyDeleteAfter Selway gets his miter, is there really a need for a seminary? Sanborn's dream of having his own seminary has not really gone well, creating many malformed priests and always needing to recruit the majority from outside the United States. Maybe they will turn it into another project for the Selway family. Perhaps the convent will take over the seminary unless, again, Selway sr. Gives the money to complete the compound that they have right next to the selway seminary? Or perhaps it will become the school? And the land bought for the cult group will be divided up for the families who support the place so they can have a Jonestown/Selwaytown?
Interesting that Cekada still shows his face down there when even the Florida elementary school supposedly has online students from around the world. Would it not save money for Cekada to teach from Cincinnati through Skype or some other online format? Why are these men so intent on spending the parishioners money by making unnecessary trips to places like Australia, the bishop's lodge for luxury vacations, and Florida, when their parishioners are footing the bill? Funny how they have money for this but not to heat or ac their own church or even keep up with basic maintenance.
They love to spend other folks' money. BTW, we think your analysis of the seminary's bleak future is right on.
DeleteCan this place get sicker and more childish?
ReplyDeletehttps://yagincincy.wordpress.com/the-publicity-guy-2/
Thanks for the link.
DeleteIf that's $GG's idea of adult humor, heaven help the children down there.
A bishop who had people standing up protesting even his priestly ordination?
ReplyDeleteA bishop who has a dad who paid for him to become bishop?
A bishop who has a dad who bought and paid for the seminary he will be in charge?
A bishop who decided it would be a good idea to live at a convent with young nuns?
A bishop who is rumored to be very close to one of his nuns?
I can see that this place has really thought out intentions in place. The intention of family money, family Ruling, and a family who one day will be compared to the Medici family. I bet that just like one of the Medici popes, the brooksville church will pay bundles for his ceremony.
Key words: nepotism, spendthrift, the future pope of Tradland, pope Leo X in more ways than one
As we all know, these aren't real bishops or real priests. Also, at least the Medici family dealt with the real Church, not some crappy Florida knockoff. Lorenzo the Magnificent had his son tutored by the leading intellectuals of the time. Plus Leo studied theology and canon law at a real university with real teachers.
DeleteEverything about the cult is fake.
"so many sede scum"? - The only Catholics in the world who have maintained the integral truth Faith in this most unprecedented disaster in the history of the Church....and you spend your time weekly venting your hatred only for them?? It's quite clear what master you are serving, and he's not from above.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute nonsense!
DeleteThese ecclesiastical entrepreneurs have invented a new sect of their own based on an imaginary view of the past. They are a cheap imitation of the Church and should be rejected by all right-thinking Catholics.
" Bishop Sanborn who once stated that he would refuse communion to anyone who went to Bishop McKenna’s Mass, subsequently accepted consecration from this Bishop"
DeleteIs this true? Did Sanborn deny communion and then turn around and get consecrated by the same person whose parishioners he denied?
We haven't heard that one.
Deletehttp://www.the-pope.com/ordination.rtf
DeleteA good summary of the problem in Traddielandia. All the more reason for an insurance policy, right?
DeleteI think that no matter how many consecrators/-co-consecrators that place has, it won't survive. You have three families who are keeping that place funded. You have a church who does not grow, and in fact, loses parishioners routinely. The place is extreme. From the crazy heel rules that Sanborn imposes to the lack of charity, the place is not Catholic. No one needs to worry about about what line any of these people come from; the place is NOT CATHOLIC.
DeleteWhat place only offers sick calls once a month when they live within 30 minutes away from the parishioners who need them? How many priests are here on almost a full time basis? 5? And they can't give a sick call? But, if you are one of the big 3, you could get it daily.
How many priests has Sanborn ordained?
ReplyDeleteGood question. Maybe someone can help us out with the stats.
DeleteYou do realize that many at the mht church believe the Selway family are as closest to saints on earth that we have? A teaching so utterly ridiculous that people have the gull to actually say out loud.
ReplyDeleteYes, we've heard reports from others about that "belief."
DeleteI can't speak for the sgg group, but the Sanborn group are far from Christlike. If you look at Christ's approach to anyone or anything in the Bible, it was nothin like Sanborn's scare tactics.
ReplyDeleteThe way Sanborn treats people is pretty horrible. Yes, the ones he needs something from are treated with a little more leniency, but in general, the man is cruel and heartless. He's producing cruel and heartless priests. He created a power family (or maybe I should say the power family created him?). He relies on the money backing of three important families who are given special passes, even for public sins. The double lives factor within his Church is amazing! We all go to Church to be better people, but when the church members laugh knowing that they don't have to follow his archaic rules and talk about him behind his back, that has to be the biggest joke here. It's hilarious how many people dislike him and are just waiting for him to turn the keys over to Selway, thinking because he's a younger priest, it will get better. Many people can't wait because they dislike Sanborn that much! Who knows about the boy wonder? Everyone knows the family will continue to rule the church, but it is put up with because Sanborn has scared everyone to think all the other churches around here are invalid.
He promises big donors special privileges, and some of the privileges are laughable. Everyone knows it, but again, they put up with it because we've all been scared on where else will we go?
I didn't realize Sanborn had the authority to sell indulgences like he does?
I'm sure more construction will have to be done to the building soon. How else could his ego and the ego of the chosen family fit through the church doors?
Lastly, I would like to say that the problems going on here are getting ready to blow up like a firework lighting up the sky. No amount of coverup will be able to stop what has been happening there. When they finally do come out, Sanborn will lose respect of people all around the world and investigations will begin. Sooner or later the truth will prevail. I think his hidden assets will come in handy in the near future.
Anon 10:35 PM ,
DeleteWhat are the special privileges that are promised to the big donors?
What is being covered up? Are you simply speculating without evidence?
Are you envious of the big donor’s money?
PL/Reader
ReplyDeleteYou admit you don't have the expertise to render judgment on the Lienart ordination of Lefebvre, right? What makes you think that any of the Lefebvre line have the slightest doubts about the validity of their orders? I can tell you that they don't. Many just chuckle and shake their heads at the mention of the Lienart furphy. It's a non-consideration in their lives.
We're not judging one way or the other on the line. Our point is that if there's even the slightest doubt with respect to the Kid, vested interests can and probably will erase it completely by making sure there's a co-consecrator present who is not in the Liénart line.
DeleteBTW, we can tell you that there ARE those in the Lefebvre line who are not at all at ease with the possible threat to their validity.
Reader/PL
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand what you're saying. If it (desiring a Thuc line co-consecrator) were true, which I'm not conceding, what exactly is the great significance? Are you saying that they're suffering from scrupolosity? Where's the evidence of that?
1. It's not the 1970s/80s - the Lienart issue was looked at by many a keen mind back then and the conclusion, based on Church teaching and Church history, was unanimous - there is moral certainty that the then Marcel Lefebvre was ordained a priest in 1929. Mind you, I'm not blaming you for being confused. I believe that the likes of Mr. John Daly of France were utterly confused back then. But, of course, since then Daly changed his mind. No shame in that. Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada changed their minds on the Abp. Ngo Thuc consecrations. No shame in that. This shows that pride isn't ruling their intellects.
2. I'm not disagreeing with this: "... there ARE those in the Lefebvre line who are not at all at ease with the possible threat to their validity."
These would be those suffering from scruples due to a lack of knowledge and understanding. Out of the 100s of SSPX clergy there are bound to be a few who harbor unreasonable fears. Do you honestly think that a Bp. Fellay or Bp. Sanborn would not have rectified matters long ago if they truly thought there wasn't moral certainty regarding the validity of their orders?
No, we're not suggesting scrupulosity at all, and we're far from confused. As we've said above, we'd attribute such a démarche to something much less spiritual than over-exercised scruples: We'd say it's a hard-nosed, practical, business decision to eliminate even the teeniest, tiniest speck of doubt from Junior's orders to make sure he'll never be annoyed by this matter in the future. In other words, beef up the certainty, especially if it's easy and cheap to accomplish.
DeleteOver the years, a fortune has been spent directly or indirectly on the Clone, all aimed at his receiving the "episcopacy." Furthermore, no one who's lived through the last 30-40 years can be unaffected by the many savage traddie disputes over validity of orders. So when it's time to pop a miter on the noggin of your very own creature, it's a no-brainer to assure his orders are as bulletproof as possible.
And such insurance is easily obtained without too much fuss or consideration or soul-searching. In this case, you're going to give the Boy-"Bishop"-Elect the grandest "consecration" Sedelandia has ever beheld, following the Pontificale Romanum to the letter.
And since the PR calls for a principal consecrator and two co-consecrators (Assistant Bishops), you're going to try to have the full cast anyway, right? So, then, just make sure at least one of them isn't tainted by one of the charges of invalidity. It's just plain Moreover, this could happen without overthinking and even by accident, since the cult's options for co-consecrators are pretty limited. We ourselves know of two who belong to the Thục-de Lauriers-McKenna line. One of them most certainly would have to be invited if they want three "bishops" on stage anyhow.
Reader/PL
Delete"Moreover, this could happen without overthinking and even by accident,..."
Respectfully, you are definitely confused. Are they hard-nosed businessmen who are going to make it happen because they are savvy operators who've considered this from every angle, or are they oblivious but it may just happen accidentally? Which is it? The answer is that it doesn't matter.
There will be those who challenge validity based on their belief that both lines are invalid. Yes, there will always be nutters denying validity.
No, we're just being thorough in exploring all eventualities. We privately guess it's a conscious choice, but we recognize that the same end could be achieved by accident. Maybe at first it started out as a mere desire to adhere to the PR, but then they became aware of the advantage. Anything's possible. The end result will be a Tradistani "bishop" who's pretty well shielded in the eyes of anyone who accepts Thục's validity: Thục --> des Lauriers -->McKenna --> The Kid. Pretty clean, wouldn't you say? No Dannie or Slupski in between to cast doubt.
DeleteYes, validity will always be challenged — and should be, what with all the irregularities in Tradistan. The sedes themselves are among the chief challengers of others and themselves. But that fact shouldn't stop prudent people from trying to minimize the impact of challenges. The nutters who pretend the challenges are of no matter are doing their cause no favor. Validity has always been a concern in the Church, and it should be for the lawless sects outside the Church, too.
Bishop Slupski was ordained in 1961 & consecrated by Bp.McKenna.
DeleteReader/PL
ReplyDeleteSo, Bp. Sanborn/MHT and the Selways are prudent in your estimation. It's good to see you publicly compliment them.
There are legitimate challenges to validity which matter, and then there are the nutters who pretend that the Lienart furphy is genuine, and that the ridiculous reasons why the Thuc consecrations are supposedly invalid hold water. Then there are the sane people who realize that these challenges don't matter.
Sanborn and Selway's prudent? Ha! That is hilarious! That group is not prudent or reasonable.
DeleteFirst of all, we don't believe Big Don is in charge down there.
DeleteAny provisional esteem we may feel belongs only to the Kid's handlers, based on the fact that, unlike cult "clergy," they seem to manage successful, productive enterprises.
A record like that argues for the presence of a healthy desire to avoid needless hazard, particularly when there's a big investment at stake. We opine that even the remote chance of the emergence of a legitimate future liability would be enough to motivate a seasoned, circumspect investor to take precautions to dispose of challenges that could matter.
Now, of course, we might be wrong to give them so much credit, so here's what we'll promise you:
IF "One-Hand Dan" is the SOLE co-consecrator on Feb. 22, then we'll admit we overestimated the puppet masters' prudence and underestimated their appetite for cult-annihilating risk.
We all may know soon enough, provided that the Donster tells us the details of the "consecration" in his January newsletter, as we are led to believe he might.
But even if we have to wait until Feb. 22 or later, should "One Hand" turn out to be the only co-consecrator, we'll still admit in this blog section that we gave those people praise they didn't deserve.
But let us add that if Dannie is NOT on stage in that specific rôle and if there is at least one Thục -des Lauriers -McKenna co-consecrator, we'll regard our original esteem as justified.
Reader/PL
Delete"First of all, we don't believe Big Don is in charge down there."
I'd suggest you check again, or better still cease listening to ill-informed informers. Bp. Sanborn is well and truly in control, unless you know something that has happened in the last 2-3 days that changed things?
Everything is not as it appears. True control exists in veiling who's in charge.
DeleteWhatever. When the Kid takes over, then it'll be obvious that "The Lowly Worm" is out.
Reader/PL
DeleteEverything is exactly as it appears. Bp. Sanborn is in charge. Now, you can deny it, and that's fine. But I'm telling you that I know as at circa 2-3 days ago Bp. Sanborn is the sole presiding authority at MHT.
Now, why do you find it necessary to call Bp. Sanborn names? It's almost as if you think it adds weight to your opinions/beliefs. It doesn't. Why do you call Fr. Selway a "kid"? He's circa 40 years old. He became a man long ago.
See below: Anon December 28, 2017 at 4:32 PM
DeleteNo, Anon 4:44, you must be fairly new to this group. Sanborn has not been in charge for a long time. It's only "appears" that way on paper. In fact, if you look at legal documents, the names have changed over time. Sanborn is still on them, but they are constantly changing.
DeleteSo many people find the Dolan/Sanborn group online, love the fancy theatrical production, and assume they know who that group is. It is extremely decieving, to say the least. sanborn's ego appears to give him a false sense of being an expert in all things church and religion.
Yet, once you are around this man, you will see that he is in no part Catholic. None whatsoever! He's an egocentric maniac who pretends to be the Roman Catholic Church, funded and paid for by the Selway family who is ultimately the one who gives him the orders. Moving to Florida and leaving the majority of the congregation behind, taking the school, seminary, and church with him, and spreading rumors to discredit a priest and families from here are by no means the actions of a catholic priest. Actually spreading rumors we stole from him when he took the church, seminary, and church proceeds that were contributed to by many families he left high and dry? He's insane.
Anon 6:11 PM,
DeleteWhat is the motivation of the Selway’s in your conspiracy?
Yeah, yeah, yeah... There are 2 sides to every story.
DeleteWasn’t there some brother cooking food at Sanborn’s seminary?
ReplyDeleteDidn't he go back to $GG? Or are we thinking of someone else?
DeleteHe has a single, female cook who lives at the seminary (not the convent). If the short-lived Lotarski "brother" was cooking, it would only to give her a break. He requires homemade meals and nothing that has been frozen. All of his meals are very expensive and the parishioners foot the bill. It isn't a meat and potatoes type thing because he has a reputation to live up to. He enjoys the fancier things in life, always driving a nice car, eating the nice food, and drinking the best liquors. That's right, I said liquor not just wine. His parishioners are tired of seeing the religious live a life that is full of luxuries. It is obvious that although the building is fallling apart, these men expect the best and the best is what they buy (for themselves, that is). Rumors are that Selway bought his new episcopal garb from Italy. Yet, doesn't his nuns make vestments and it's one of the ways they fund their convent? These men spare no expense when it comes to themselves. Yet, the building is falling apart. Go figure!
DeleteI recall it being over 10 yrs ago
DeleteHe cooked before the single woman started
Oh, so Sanborn is in charge? That's why they moved to Florida because Sanborn was the one with the fake hand condition? That's why they moved an entire operation to Florida and left more parishioners than actually followed? All because Sanborn is in charge? What a joke!
ReplyDeleteAnon@ 4:32 pm
ReplyDeleteYou seem very angry? I only know that Bp. Sanborn is calling the shots.
As for your allegations about a "fake" hand injury. No one believes you. Photos or it didn't happen
You are completely out of it, poor thing. Why don't you talk to the Michiganders at St. Dominic's or to the Jellyfish itself.
DeleteThey'll tell you all the details about the syndrome and the need to follow "moneybags" to FL. (At least, they used to love to talk about it to anybody who would listen.)
In general it seems that “Anon” and Reader have a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories, but not many cold hard facts. Sure they sprinkle in some facts here and there, but if this blog were just the facts it would be very short and wouldn’t paint the dire conspiratorial evil plot that they want to paint.
ReplyDeleteSo Bishop S, Bishop D, and Father C all decided 40 years ago to embark on some crazy long winded conspiracy to pretend to be priests with a hardline theology so they could purposefully massively limit the amount of growth they might have so they could then extract money from as few unsuspecting parishioners as possible so they could ultimately live in both an industrial park and the middle of nowhere in a Seminary?
One would think from reading this blog that you were talking about Joel Osteen!
You're welcome to your own reading of their motivation. We just think they saw a great opportunity for themselves amidst the gullible.
DeletePlease! Put down that magic eight ball. That's not the way to decide why others do things.
DeleteAnon Dec 29 at 11:32 AM.
DeleteHear! Hear!
N.B. We interpret 11:32's comment as a rejoinder to 8:05.
DeleteI don't believe the beginning goal of these men was greed, but I think it was corrupted over time. Their view on things keep flip flopping, depending on how it fits their current status. Terrie Schiavo, thuc, Neville, Eamon Shea, Dr. Drolesky, a few specific nuns, cmri, Ramolla, mr. Halll, and McKenna are just some of the facts for 8:05 to research. When you research these things, more issues will come up and you will begin to connect the dots of arrogance and pride, the opposite virtues that our Lord taught of humility.
DeleteI can't say much on Dolan, he seems to keep quiet. On the other hand, Sanborn and Cekada are full of themselves and open themselves to criticism all over the internet by projecting their scholarly review of everything under the sun. They have declared themselves the encyclopedia of Trad Catholics, and they have publicly looked down on other trad catholic leaders, cmri being one.
Look at the current situation in Arizona Of Palma creating an idea that it is horrible to go to a cmri church. It can't be thuc, since both are from that line, so what is it exactly for a reason why Palma would spread hate and lies about another Catholic group? If Sanborn did not agree, would he not step in and stop this?
Also, look at what priest breaks open champagne/wine to celebrate someone dying, and according to them, laughs that most likely burning in hell?
Just because these men appear to be scholars, that doesn't make them an authority on being Catholic. I notice you criticize this blog, while at the same time reading it; Yet, have you condemned any of these priests actions for slander and uncharity? Or do they get to do what they want because they have a roman collar.
You have a very limited view of these men, which leads me to believe you don't know them well. I don't know if you are just a Sunday church goer, new to traddieland, or if you have just drank the koolaid they feed you, but you really need to do your research. Ask past parishioners, especially that of the mass exodus of 2009. Ask Neville's church members who may or may not be willing to talk.
A great reply to 8:05.
DeleteYou're probably close to the truth regarding the cult masters' original goal. However, as Eric Hoffer wrote, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
We doubt the Jellyfish's people will do as much trash-talking about the B'ville cult kingpin as they used to. They're probably having a tough time wrapping their heads around the rapprochement between Big Don and Bobby. And if the Jellyfish is a co-consecrator, they'll have to clam up completely, unless they decide to leave.
I will step in here having skimmed through the comments after reading the article itself back when it had 17 comments. I spent a lot of time listening to Bp. Sanborn in podcasts from TRRadio, and am the illustration for the story of how someone - even more a born protestant - gets all excited and later learns the truth - the truth only gleaned after hours spent reading the entire PL archives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the PL take on Bp. Sanborn and the enterprise because when I listened to podcasts I regularly had to deal with my own personal distaste for what my ear told me was disdain. No; this isn't a quality for which I am known so I am not reading myself into another person.
Re: Selway - a name I had never heard 'until this blog'
Q. The answer is probably there in the archival comments and I missed it amongst all the other detail I was inhaling:
Is Fr. Benjamin Selway related to Fr. Joseph Selway? Is this not interesting. Fr. Benjamin Selway is associated with the SSPV.
Thanks.
As far as I know, the Selway family has its branches in all organizations of Tradistan, including the SSPV.
DeleteI was taught that the lesser is contained in the greater, in that if there are defects in validity of a priestly ordination, any such defects would be rectified during the rite of consecration as a bishop.
ReplyDeleteNot according to the more common opinion. See our reference in our "Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand" (p. 25), as linked in our post.
DeleteI wish Bishop Arzine would conditionally ordain and consecrate the entire Thuc line just to erase any form of doubt for the laity.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean Arinze?
DeleteYes
Delete