Saturday, January 6, 2018

"OF ALL THE WEEK'S THE UNLUCKIEST DAY"


Non decipitur qui scit se decipi. ("He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived"). Latin Legal Maxim

In the days after Christmas, there went out an invitation from the $GG cult masters that all might attend a Friday, December 29, Requiem High "Mass," burial, and post-interment luncheon. Immediately below the address of the lunch venue, The Farm, "Cincinnati's Place to Have a Party," this shocking advice appeared:
Those who attend the luncheon may consider 
themselves dispensed from the Friday abstinence.
This horror may have landed in your inbox. You may even have waddled on over to scarf up some meaty fare. PL can understand why you went. From reading the announcement "All are invited," we're inclined to believe a free lunch was on offer.

Yet for us, that brief sentence substantiates every criticism we've ever leveled against the SW Ohio cult, justifying why we shame the degenerate laity who keep $GG on life support. Those 13 unholy words represent everything despicable about the ecclesiastical entrepreneurs who run the renegade operation.

Before we continue, we'll give a little credit to "One-Hand Dan": He's fully aware he cannot, in accordance with c. 1245, dispense anyone from the observance of fasts and abstinence — not individual cases, not a family, and certainly not a great concourse of people: Dannie's neither an ordinary nor a pastor and therefore has no subjects to dispense. In a similar vein, he's wary enough to realize that PL, other sites, and rival independent "clergy" would pillory him if he "dispensed." Nevertheless, he wanted the feed. So what did His Ambivalency do?

He innovated by playing fast and loose with language, that's what he did. None need parse too closely the words of the "dispensation" to conclude it's the attendees who dispense themselves, not Dannie:
"If YOU are arrogant and lawless, then YOU may dispense yourself from the Catholic law of abstinence, provided you do your pigging out on flesh-meat at the party house on Friday."
Looks like the Wee One's off the hook, although the ill-starred Gerties may not be.

A genuinely observant traditional Catholic attending the luncheon would not have given credence to the bogus "self-dispensation" from cult central. No attendee can claim to have broken Church law as a result of ignorance, for cultlings know "[t]he law of abstinence must be observed on all Fridays throughout the year, except those which are holy days of obligation outside Lent (c. 1252, § 4)."*

And if they can't recall the rule, they may consult their traditional Catholic calendar for its specific application.** Moreover, even the most debased Gertie knows Dannie is not the ordinary of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Any pious, traditional Catholic bellying up to the buffet line was obligated to choose a lawful dish and reject the impious "self-dispensation." (Those with an informed conscience ought to have denounced it publicly and demanded its rescission.)

No Catholic possessed of prudent judgment can say the law of abstinence, owing to grave obstacles or impossibility, did not bind the meat-frenzied SW Ohio partygoers on Friday, December 29, 2017. In this day and age, most eateries bend over backwards to accommodate vegetarians; nonetheless, even if The Farm were a manic-meat-eaters-only zone, no soul in the SW Ohio cult would've suffered for declining to chow down at lunchtime on marinated fried chicken, tender and meaty baby-back ribs in barbecue sauce, or sliced roast beef in gravy. Sides like buttered corn niblets, dinner rolls, home-style gourmet coleslaw, and perhaps, if prepared without meat products, au-gratin green beans ("a cheesy treat") would've sustained them until the dinner bell clanged at home.

Whether the woebegone Gerties sinned is a question we'll leave for others to debate. For us, we lament the unfortunate lost opportunity for the laity to teach the malformed "clergy" a lesson in fidelity to ecclesiastical legislation. Imagine the edifying witness to tradition the assembled cultlings could have rendered had they obeyed Church law and refused to partake of flesh-meat at that Friday luncheon. Only the "clergy, " Novus Ordites, or any Protestants in attendance would've been left with their plates groaning with forbidden foodstuffs.

From all appearances, at $GG witness means surrendering to the seductive innovations of the cult kingpins: hang the law!

Out of curiosity, the Readers wonder how many Gerties attending the luncheon did have a pang of conscience, did feel what they were doing was wrong, did recognize the strangely worded "self-dispensation" was a crock. At least several, we'd say: there still do remain, you know, a few good souls who have reservations about everything happening down there.

Did they feel the secret guilt of rowdy schoolboys whose hearts tell them the headmaster should've enforced the rules? Almost a certainty. Did they feel the same schoolboys' contempt for weak-willed authority figures? We'd say so.  Did they quietly scorn the malformed "clergy" who wolfed down meat on that unseasonable Friday at The Farm?  Yes, they did.

But they didn't speak up, did they?

Well, what can you expect? How can you nurture a Catholic conscience in the jinxed cult? Acknowledging wrongdoing is a good start, though. Similarly, all of you in cyberspace reading this post —friend or foe of PL — must concur with the Readers there was no licit "self-dispensation" for the funeral feast at "the party barn." Nothing can excuse the transgressive notice in the $GG invitation. However, its content may be explained in two words:

FAKE CATHOLICISM 

* Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, 497. 2.

** We don't have a copy of $GG's 2017 calendar, but we do have a copy of the 2006 edition, when December 29 also fell on a Friday. On that date, we find the whole-fish icon (= "complete abstinence"). The Readers presume the 2017 $GG effort was similarly marked. Perhaps somebody can confirm.

116 comments:

  1. Wouldn't The Farm have options for seafood/meatless entrees on their luncheon menu? Also, wouldn't the family be careful enough (even in their grief) to select those entrees?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what we would've thought, too. But seemingly Dannie felt it necessary to issue the "self-dispensation." Who knows why? Did he want the meat?

      Delete
  2. Didn't he dispense himself in Mexico over a Lent too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They had "copious quantities of meat," supposedly because of local custom, we think.

      Delete
    2. When the carnivorous leprechaun wants his meat, he can think of any and all technicalities to get (and justify) it. (And it’s so typical of Dannie that he “weasel-worded” his “dispensation,” to avoid assigning any “ecclesiastical responsibility” to himself In the matter – putting the burden-of-guilt onus on his Gerties, not himself. But what else could one expect from a weasel?)

      BTW, we all remember (as, I'm sure, does the Reader) Dannie pulling the same crap some years back (issuing a phony “dispensation” in order to get people to come and “fill up the pews”). He probably weasel-worded it the same way (we don’t remember); but, whichever way he did, it was still a phony, unwarranted “directive.” Dannie is not only a fraud, but a deceitful one at that.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the reminder, Watcher. Yes, on March 16, 2014 (Lent II), we recall a similar message in the "Corner," this one about the fast:

      Now, church opportunities abound this week, but surely good St. Joseph should not be deprived of his honor. We dedicate our annual Lenten Children’s Day of Recollection to him, along with the Solemn Mass, and St. Joseph’s Table and lunch. If you’re only going once “extra” this week, this would be your day. Those who attend the Mass may consider themselves dispensed from the fast.

      Same disingenuous "self-dispensation." What's next? Self-declarations of nullity of marriage?

      Delete
  3. Watcher: Just a tad more pseudo-indignation and touch more frothing-at-the-mouth, and your rant would've been tres magnifique! :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the Watcher:

      Anon. 9:57 AM, it seems that it’s you who are “frothing at the mouth” here, feeling yourself compelled to offer an unsolicited comment on someone else’s comment – with nothing to add but baseless criticism. BTW, there was no “pseudo-indignation” on my part, just derisive amusement at how Dunce-cap Dannie keeps trying to “play the authority,” but keeps exposing himself for the bungling amateur that he is. Lastly, I fail to see how “pseudo-indignation” or “frothing at the mouth” makes a statement more “magnifique.” Anon, you had better go back and study French again, before trying to impress us with your foreign phraseology. It sounds a little “pseudo-intellectual” to me. (Is Dannie’s amateurism starting to “rub off” on you?)

      Delete
    2. Watcher,

      Owing to a problem with the server, Blogger couldn't publish your comment, that's why we reposted. Our web mistress tells us everything's A-OK now.

      Delete
    3. Reader,
      You write about 'meat frenzy' and the like. Do you have any witness/es who saw any members of the clergy or laity from sgg eating meat on the Friday in question?

      Delete
    4. Don't be naïve.

      If we read "you may consider yourself dispensed from the Friday abstinence," we may assume at least some "self-dispensed."

      Your question is as mindless as if we asked you to produce an affidavit from everyone in attendance that they didn't "self-dispense."

      Delete
    5. Why is this a bid deal to you? Do you argue that Pre-VII a bishop could not or did not do similar dispensations or is your argument that they could, but since you don’t consider trad Bishops to have any commission from “the church” that you say in this case it is wrong?

      I would argue that until we have a real hierarchy back in the church we can’t know how much, if any , and in what context cannon law even applies right now. We are in a time of extraordinary exception and there is no manual.

      Delete
    6. The sede "bishops" have no apostolic mandate, so therefore there have no authority. If you ask them and if they answer honestly, they'll tell you the same.

      BTW, we're all for the notion that canon law is suspended. But these guys keep citing it to justify themselves. Now you've got to decide one way or the other.

      Delete
    7. Reader,

      I think you actually are pretty much on the same page as SGG and others on this one. Just because they cite cannon law does not mean they believe it is fully or partially in effect. Many feel as you do, that it is suspended for many of the reasons you provided, YET still CHOOSE to follow the spirit of the law as best they can to attempt to keep things as close to how they were/should be. Obviously this would not apply across the board as not everything is frozen in time. So if one says they will CHOOSE to follow the various historical norms in fasting and abstinence even though they don’t have to, but then also CHOOSE to “self-dispense” when it fits a situation that historically would also fit, they are not doing anything wrong. They are actually being very consistent.

      Many trads seek a “dispensation” from the sede clergy even the BOTH sides know it is not technically required, yet the trad wants guidance from their priest and trusts in the priest’s better understanding of many issues and the priest will often say “typically the church would/would not dispense/grant annulment, etc in this situation.

      You act as though the sede Clery are hiding the fact that they don’t believe they have this authority, yet they opening say this and it is no mystery. They actually go out of their way to make this point which is how I first heard of the concept years ago.

      I think if you really consider what they actually say and do in the context of the big picture of living the spirit of the Pre-VII law you will see you actually mostly agree with them.

      Don’t let your hatred blind you such that you must think you have to disagree on everything when on this topic you essentially seem to agree without realizing it.

      Delete
    8. Hatred hasn't blinded us, by no means. We've seen and heard certain sedes reference canon law as if it's in force, at least when it serves them.

      Delete
  4. Lol The Watcher! That's the sort of ranting and raving we want to see 'advancing the conversation' and winning me bets!
    Watcherrrr, you have that...je ne sais quoi...well, actually I do know - you evince a cringe-worthy and creepy feeling. Ugh!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Talk about the devil being in the details!
    What a spin the Artful Dodger put on self-dispensation.
    If nothing else, one must give them credit for managing to pull every trick in the book to muster up funds from both the living and the dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good, and very perceptive

      It would be nice to know who footed the bill at the "party barn." If the deceased were as traditional as represented, we're sure she would have been mortified at the "self-dispensation."

      Delete
  6. I would argue that without a valid pope or ecclesiastical authority one is not bound to Cannon law itself as there is no leadership to govern and maintain proper changes as needed. This would not apply to items of divine law. I don’t know if this would fall under Epikeia or some other principle, but it would be common sense as many of the disciplinary items have continually been changed throughout history and are often suited to the times and vary throughout the different cultures. Being a traditionalist doesn’t mean all things simply FREEZE in the 1950’s. Essentially most traditionalists attempt to prudently apply the pre VII laws as they would apply today.

    Also assuming I am incorrect and I followed The Reader’s understanding that the Novus Ordro hierarchy is in fact the true authentic hierarchy of the Catholic church with full commission and all, wouldn’t one be able to simply then follow the Novus Ordo’s cannon law which allow you to eat meat on Friday anyway? (i.e. either way the parishioners of SGG have no problem)

    Most trad priests simply say that we try to follow the typical norms in place for things like dispensations, annulments, etc. They don’t claim all of this authority you assume them of claiming. Some take a more hardline view that we can’t do anything even though one might have what would always have been a legitimate reason for a dispensation or annulment.

    In any case it is not an ideal situation, but yet here we are and the few priests attempting to hold to tradition cannot be blamed for this. In simple terms traditionalists attempt as best they can to apply the historical law’s intention in today’s world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the cult masters constantly cite canon law as justification for their actions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      Delete
    2. you can if you are choosing to bind yourself to the spirit of the law. Some bind themselves to the letter as well.

      Delete
  7. Anon 7:17 PM - Wouldn't Cannon law be some kind of gun law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean gun law?

      Delete
    2. ??? Because cannon is a type of gun?! Canon law is a church law. Cannon law must be some kind of gun law. Get it?

      Delete
    3. Yes I get it now. I missed the spelling mistake.

      Delete
    4. Hard to believe some people can be this dense!!

      Delete
  8. If one claims to be adhering to Tradition then one does not have the right to alter what Tradition adheres to.

    We Trads do not have a POPE, yet if we keep playing at this game of "THE PRICE IS RIGHT", one will POP-UP.Just like all the Bishops started to Pop-UP after the split in 1983. Sooner or later someone is going to declare himself "KING OF THE HILL", and then we can all watch Chaos in full reign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, didn't you know? Selway is the king of the hill. The cultlings say that he and his family are the closest thing to saints on earth.

      If anyone is going to be named a pope or head of the trade, it is he.

      Delete
  9. What was the core reason for the permission to dispense? Was it a valid reason and was it moral to suggest they could do it?

    Can people dispense themselves when a cleric with or without jurisdiction suggests it is permissible?

    If people can dispense themselves then do they absolutely need a bishop with or without jurisdiction to give them permission, could a priest with or without jurisdiction tell them they can dispense themselves, or can they dispense themselves without and suggestion from a cleric when they think it justifiable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Roberti's Dictionary of Moral Theology (our emphasis):

      "Dispensation is an act by which competent authority releases a subject from the observance of a law in a particular case. The authority empowered to grant a dispensation is the law-maker or some superior authority. Sometimes, a dispensation is granted by an inferior authority, but only if delegated power is given by the ordinary competent authority."

      Delete
  10. So, self- dispensing is BS.

    Bishop Dolan could be a competent authority.

    But he did not dispense.

    What was the reason for allowing the dispensation? We know the circumstances and the setting, but what was the REASON?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dannie has no jurisdiction, so he is not a competent authority.

      But don't take our word for it. Read what Big Don wrote to "Bishop" McKenna in a letter dated May 18, 2004:

      "...there is no bishop or priest who has jurisdiction in the traditional movement..."

      In the same letter, he quoted from the "seminary's" rule:

      "In these times...the Church is deprived of a hierarchy endowed with jurisdiction..."

      After which he wrote,

      "To me it is a dangerous fiction to give the impression to anyone, parishioners, seminarians, or religious, that they are submitted to clergy or superiors who are true ecclesiastical superiors. They are not. There is no substitute for the authority of the Church.

      Delete
    2. The “reason” for the dispensation is obvious: Dannie wanted to “fill up the pews” – just as he did with that “fasting dispensation" some years back. Dannie always likes to put on a big “show” – and filling the pews for the deceased’s solemn “pontifical” extravaganza was his way of doing so (impressing her family and friends) -- and soothing his guilty conscience about the fact that she died needlessly and before her time.

      And, notwithstanding all the arguments about “authority to dispense,” etc., I’ve never heard of anyone (legitimate or otherwise) dispensing , but no one else. It reminds me of a humorous, tongue-in-cheek “cartoon” that appeared in a military magazine one time: “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year – to authorized personnel only!”

      Delete
    3. Reader what is your thought on the concept of implied jurisdiction?

      Delete
    4. Reader,

      Yes I did mean supplied.

      Delete
    5. As you know, implied jurisdiction is a very complex topic, into which we cannot delve in this space. If you're asking what we think the term means, then we'll quote you Bouscaren (our emphasis):

      "...when jurisdiction is supplied by the Church, the person acting is entirely without jurisdiction both before and after the act in question; he has jurisdiction, supplied by the Church, only in the act itself."

      Delete
  11. Anonymous January 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM
    Stated:

    "But, didn't you know? Selway is the king of the hill. The cultlings say that he and his family are the closest thing to saints on earth"...

    "Closest thing to saints on earth"

    Well, maybe close but no cigar!

    And as far as King of the Hill goes, I think he just might be King of the Sink Hole by the time Brooksville continues to seep into its own level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 1:29, "Maybe close?"
      You must be kidding? Where do people get these ideas?

      He's not the king of anything but his Daddy's building that Daddy bought and paid for, along with paying for his position as a bishop.

      Delete
  12. .."Well, maybe close but no cigar!"...

    I think this statement is quite clear, however for the sake of Charity let's leave the determination of sainthood in God's Hands.

    ReplyDelete
  13. .."Well, maybe close but no cigar!"...

    No cigar means missing out entirely

    So "no cigar" in relation to sainthood, means no heaven, which means he would be damned.

    Please stop this type of posting; it is disgusting and un-Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please reproduce the invitation here in toto.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who decides whether a person gets a mass by the local bishop or by the priest? Does it depend on if you gave more while you are alive or how much you leave when you are dead?

    Who decides how often one gets sick calls? What if one would like a sick call every week? Does it depend on how much you give? When you are a shut-in, how many sick calls can you expect if you are within 15 miles of the church?

    ReplyDelete
  16. O.K., Anon. Jan. 9, 1:12 AM. Here it is, cut directly from the e-mail:

    St. Gertrude the Great
    Katie Bischak + RIP

    WAKE
    Meyer/Geiser Funeral Home
    4989 Glenway Ave
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45238
    Thursday December 28, 5-7 PM
    Rosary 7 PM

    FUNERAL
    St Gertrude the Great Church
    Friday December 29
    Viewing 9.30 AM
    Requiem High Mass 10 AM

    BURIAL
    Immediately following, Old St Joseph's Cemetery

    LUNCHEON FOLLOWING BURIAL
    The Farm , 239 Anderson Ferry Road, 45238. N
    All are invited.

    Those who attend the luncheon may consider themselves dispensed from the Friday abstinence.

    St. Gertrude the Great Church
    4900 Rialto Road
    West Chester OH 45069
    513.645.4212
    Preferences | Unsubscribe

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reader, why are you all for suspending Canon Law? Justification?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've answered this before, but we don't mind summarizing our position.

      We're not for suspending canon law. Like many European trads who don't teach it in their "seminaries," we believe it has already been suspended in the crisis.

      Today, if someone in Sedelandia violates a provision in the 1917 Code, who will sanction him? Who can impose or absolve penalties? Who can conduct judicial procedure in matrimonial cases? Who can draft definitive sentences? Who can dispense from irregularities arising from public and occult crime? Etc., etc.

      No one can.

      Sure, it can serve as a private guide to exemplary conduct, but that's it. As a law though, it has no teeth. Therefore, it is de facto suspended.

      We're just acknowledging reality.

      Delete
    2. Reader, it is currently impossible to adhere to *certain aspects* of Canon Law. This is NOT to say that
      Canon Law has been suspended, per se. It hasn't been. The same moral obligation to follow Canon Law exists in all cases where it is possible to do so.

      However, you rightly point out that, to give one example, it is impossible to conduct judicial procedure in matrimonial cases. In the foregoing case, and those similar, it is currently impossible to adhere to Canon Law. There lies the distinction between suspension and impossibility.

      Delete
    3. We don't dispute that trads can — and should — adhere to the 1917 Code as a norm for personal comportment. (Wouldn't it be nice if the cult masters did so?)

      The problem lies in the fact that there is no jurisdiction where this systematic compilation of laws operates, for there is no power to adjudicate, which is a valid exercise of jurisdiction.

      Even if the sedes were rash enough to set up "Playskool courts" like their "Playskool seminaries," the judgments would be void without jurisdiction. Thus for all practical purposes the 1917 Code has the same status as if it had been suspended.

      Delete
    4. Reader, During a "regular" interregnum, as opposed to a "crisis" interregnum, Canon Law has a binding, legal force, as well as, of course, a binding, moral force.

      The Reader: "...trads can — and should — adhere to the 1917 Code as a norm for personal comportment."

      Obviously, sedes realize that Canon Law (1917) currently cannot be legally enforced. But it's not a case of "adherence to the 1917 Code as a norm for personal comportment"; rather, there is a moral obligation to follow Canon Law as far as humanly possible. Let's go ahead and grant you that in effect Canon Law has been suspended --- from a jurisprudence point of view. Fine. But the point is that one is still morally obligated to self-police and pass judgements based on the legal principles contained within the Code, and to adhere to the 1917 Code of Canon Law as far as one can.

      Delete
    5. We see your point, and completely agree the laity and the "clergy" must "self-police" according to Catholic norms, but we can't quite affirm the "moral obligation" in A.D. 2018 to "self-police" in accordance with the 1917 CCL: Who can say whether the exact same code would be in force today had the crisis not intervened? Having spoken to real, pre-V2 priests with genuine, advanced canon-law degrees, there is much reason to believe it would certainly have been revised within 100 years after its promulgation, even without the Modernist revolution. Fortunately, we have many other more detailed sources for moral guidance.

      But aside from such speculation, the sedes' own actions demonstrate they themselves don't want to be morally obligated to the letter or spirit of the 1917 CCL. For instance, "bishops" are consecrated without Apostolic Manadate, a violation of c. 953. "Priests" are unlawfully ordained in violation of cc. 955 and 974.1.7. There is no legitimate junior clergy examination (cc. 130), nor is there a means for the faithful to lodge an accusation against a "priest" by whom he or she was solicited (cc. 904, 2368.2).

      We could go on and on, but you get the picture.

      Delete
    6. The sede clergy are trying to follow the spirit of the law. Your examples are a letter of the law example.

      Delete
    7. The Reader Jan. 10th @ 2:19 pm.
      I think you might want to rethink your ideas on not being morally obligated to adhere to Canon Law.
      As you know I believe there is a moral obligation.
      Consider this example question: Are bishops morally obligated NOT to ordain men with impediments to the priesthood or is it merely a matter of "personal comportment" not to do so?

      Delete
    8. What kind of bishops are you talking about? Legitimate Roman Catholic bishops of proven fitness, with solid learning in theology and canon law appointed by the Roman Pontiff and consecrated with an Apostolic Mandate?

      Or did you mean the illicit "bishops" of Sedelandia who self-elected?

      If you were referring to the latter, we happen to know for a fact that lawless episcopi vagantes have "ordained" men with impediments to ordination. We call to mind cases of a son of a non-Catholic who remained in error, of a married man whose wife is still living, of a neophyte, and of someone who had lost his good name.

      So, thanks for the invitation, but we'll pass on rethinking. We'll stick with the Europeans and consider the 1917 CCL suspended. A good guide to conduct when applicable, but it's not binding law, for reasons we've outlined earlier. Besides, for moral guidance, we have the far more useful works of the manualists of yore.

      Delete
    9. So if the law is suspended, then THERE IS NO LAW.

      Thus, there are no canonical impediments, irregularities, need for Apostolic Mandates (does the Reader really think Frankie will dish out mandates to consecrate traditional bishops?? Give me a break), no need for priests to be trained in seminaries, no need for anything of the LAW that the Reader rants about on here.. The LAW IS SUSPENDED, SO THERE IS NO LAW.

      Which is it? Law or no law? MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

      There is no consistency here. Either there is a law or there isn't.

      Just as with the cult masters, the ones who are fighting on the other side have gone just as whacko.

      Delete
    10. We were demonstrating the hypocrisy of the sede cults, which hide behind canon law when it serves them and flout it when it doesn't.

      Delete
    11. You make no sense, as usual. It doesn't matter which "type" of bishop. It would be immoral to ordain a man with an impediment to the priesthood, period. I think you'll find that law in the 1917 CoCL and in the 1983 "CoCL."
      Again, You missed my point entirely. Time to rethink.

      Delete
    12. OK. We agree no one — Catholic or impostor — should ordain bozos with canonical impediments.

      Then why do sedes ordain men with impediments? Are you saying they're immoral?

      And, no, we didn't miss your point. We make perfect sense, as usual. You missed our point.

      Delete
    13. No, I didn't miss the "point" you are trying to introduce. But my point, if you care to remember, is simply that there is a moral obligation for a sede to adhere to Canon Law insofar as is humanly possible. It's not merely a matter of using it as a guide to comport onself. I don't know why you were fighting me on this? The sede clergy are obligated by the 1917 CoCL. If you can cite concrete examples of where they've contravened that is obviously not good. But it's besides my point.

      And sedes should understand that when it comes to fast and abstinence on a Friday they MUST refrain from stuffing meat in their pie holes UNLESS there is a valid excuse which they can apply which is found in the manuals. This is coming from a sede.

      Delete
    14. We're not "fighting" you.

      From our position that the 1917 CCL is suspended, we simply cannot affirm it is immoral or sinful to disregard it. Why? Because we believe it is not in force, plus there's no one to impose sanctions for its violation and no one to amend it. But we do think that even as dead letter it offers a guide to conduct in this prolonged crisis.

      We do agree with you that the sede "clergy" who imagine the 1917 CCL is operative are obligated to adhere to it. But as you see, many don't.

      Delete
  18. It may be unfair to suppose the SGG people ate meat on Friday. Were you present? Do you have pictures or eyewitness testimony? If nobody ate meat then no harm was done. Agree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, we don't!

      Whether or not PL has high-resolution cellphone images — better still, videos) — of the $GG partygoers or notarized affidavits or fly-on-the-wall reports of the Friday meat-frenzy is of no significance.

      Even if every attendee, including the ravenous "clergy," went vegan on Friday, December 29, the $GG cult masters had no authority to issue their ludicrous and lawless "self-dispensation."

      Indeed, the "self-dispensation" is their frank admission that they themselves don't know they haven't the authority, otherwise Dannie would have issued the "dispensation" under his name. If they truly believed they had jurisdictiion, we should have seen something like this:

      The bishop of Tradistan, SW Ohio District, dispenses from the Friday abstinence all who attend the post-interment luncheon at The Farm on December 29, 2017."

      These jerkweeds use the Code of Canon Law as a club when it suits them, but kick it to the curb when it doesn't.

      Delete
  19. Anonymous January 8, 2018 at 10:28 PM

    Interpreted and quoted incorrectly!

    "...No cigar means missing out entirely.."..

    Clearly this is your total misunderstanding, from a lack of being able to quote correctly. Please re-read the following.

    "Well, maybe close but no cigar!"...

    Clearly MAYBE in this sentence is very Charitable and Catholic, and allows one to strive for the Brass Ring/ a/k/a The Cigar or Sainthood, ( Heaven ). However, should one not make it, they are not damned for trying, after all we do have Purgatory.

    Either way, the eternal judging for Sainthood is in God's Hands and none other.
    The earthly rewards will be determined by the Parishioners who continue to support him.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse us, but we don't understand that last sentence. Can you clarify? Thanks.

      Delete
  20. 1)“Those who attend the luncheon may consider themselves dispensed from the Friday abstinence.”

    That does say anyone would SELF-DISPENSE.

    It is stating that they may CONSIDER THEMSELVES dispensed, and the bishop is letting them know. And not necessarily because the bishop dispensed them either.

    I will give you an example.

    If it had stated “those who attend the luncheon may consider themselves welcome to stay until 8pm”, would that mean the people were self-welcomed to stay until 8PM? Or that THE BISHOP had welcomed them to stay until 8PM?
    Or could that statement be an announcement of a purported fact?
    Could it mean that they could consider themselves welcome because someone else, other than the bishop has stated they are welcome?

    Note: I am not arguing for or against what happened, as I do not have all the facts at hand.

    It was a pre-arranged catered event that was organized by the Novus Ordo family members of the deceased. I have read in pre-V2 approved Catholic books that when one attends a meal and only meat is provided, then Catholics may eat it so as not to offend the host. No dispensation from clergy required. Not self-dispensed. But not held to the law because of applying a principle laid down in the theology books.

    2) You say: But they [“Gerties”] didn't speak up, did they?
    How do you know if anyone spoke up, in private?

    3) You say: there still do remain, you know, a few good souls who have reservations about everything happening down there.
    Well that is better than Laypulpit which considers them all scum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Casuistry!

      Dolan should have told them they were invited but the law of abstinence was still in force.

      Delete
    2. I am Anonymous from January 9, 2018 at 8:44 PM
      As can be deduced I meant to write: "That NOT does say anyone would SELF-DISPENSE."

      Delete
    3. Anonymous January 9, 2018 at 8:44 PM

      Re: your remark about a meal with only meat:

      The pre-V2 moral theologians taught that for guests to appeal to such a excusing cause, the all-meat meal had to be unforeseen, unexpected, as is clear in Merkelbach's description of such guests (Summa Theologiae Moralis (1942), ii, 967, d, {our emphasis]):

      ...hospites qui, praeter expectationem, totum prandium inveniunt ex carnibus paratum, nec aliunde sine gravi incommodo discedere aut alia alimenta petere queant: si vero res praevideatur, invitationem recusare tenentur, quoties fieri potest, aut dispensationem sibi obtinere..

      Very literally:

      "...guests who, outside [beyond, contrary to] expectation discover the whole meal prepared from meats, and cannot take leave by another way without grave disadvantage [inconvenience, discomfort] or seek other food: but if the thing be known beforehand [foreseen], they are obliged to refuse the invitation, as often as [whenever, on any occasion that, every time that, in any case in which] it can be done, or obtain a dispensation for themselves."

      There was nothing unforeseen about the bill of fare in this case, and in Tradistan it is impossible to obtain a dispensation.

      Delete
    4. The Reader,
      Is this "unforeseen" aspect the unanimous opinion of all the theologians?

      Delete
    5. Read the following excerpt from Tanquerey (Synopsis Theologiae Moralis ad usum SEMINARIORUM (1919), ii. 1131, (d) and compare it to the Merkelbach text above:

      ...hospites qui, praeter expectationem, totum prandium inveniunt vetitis epulis paratum, nec aliunde sine gravi incommodo discedere queunt: si vero res praevideatur, invitationem recusare tenentur, quoties fieri potest.

      Very literally (see our original comment for alternative translations of certain words):

      ""...guests who, outside expectation, discover the whole meal prepared from forbidden foods, and cannot take leave by another way without grave disadvantage: but if the thing be known beforehand, they are obliged to refuse the invitation whenever it can be done."

      There are a few minor differences in Latin vocabulary, one in verbal mood, and Tanquerey has shortened his text a little bit, but you'll see the teaching is not only the same, but for the most part verbatim.

      For an emphasis on the social dimension but with echoes of the same language, compare Noldin (1904), Summa Theologiae Moralis, ii, 665, d, γ (text cut from Google Books):

      Hospes, qui die abstinentiae ad prandium invitatur, quod ex carnibus parari novit, per se invitationem recusare tenetur, eamque tum solum licite acceptare potest, si ex refutatione notabile incommodum ut gravem offensionem, inimicitias merito timere debet. — Hospes, qui praeter expectationem integrum prandium ex carnibus paratum invenit, licite carnes manducat, si neque alios cibos obtinere nec sine gravi incommodo discedere potest.

      You may wish to consult other moral theological manuals and compare the language. Check the indices under "Abstinentia" for something like "causae excusantes" to find the page.

      Delete
    6. At 6:12 AM below, the morning moderator indicated we might reply to 9 Jan. 8:44's thoughts/questions on "consider themselves."

      A full linguistic analysis here would probably have everyone yawning, so let us confine our reply to two elements:

      1) Just to be clear, our post never said Dannie dispensed. In fact, we noted the weaselly phraseology got him "off the hook" with rival "clergy" and other opponents. Had he dispensed, the post would have been much more sharply worded.

      2) Anybody may cordially permit or invite, but only a competent superior with legitimate authority may dispense from ecclesiastical law. (That's one reason we've said the "self-dispensation" was a crock.)

      Delete
  21. Nothing wrong with genuine casuistry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 8:44's analysis of "you may consider" also deserves a full reply. We'll see if one of the Readers has time later today after the Wednesday editorial meeting.

      Delete
  22. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2018 at 9:59 PM


    Of course Bishop Dolan thinks the law of abstinence is still in force...otherwise he would not have explained that in this particular circumstance they could consider themselves dispensed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "...The earthly rewards will be determined by the Parishioners who continue to support him."

    I believe this statement refers to the "King of the Hill" remark. Any and all who support any of these vultures,(in this case Selway) must take some responsibility for the power that they gain due to the revenue they receive from their parishioners.

    In this case Selway would have money no matter what, as his family is rich. However, because his father bought the miter for his son, should be a big beware sign to anyone attending that Church, and donating any kind of funds to increase that Mitered Mites "Earthly Gains".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What they have always supported is a man, not a Church. What has always been gained is "status" within the cult. Notice that the givers have a "special" relationship with the clergy. Status that allows dispensations (such has been discussed with the food), clothing dispensations, invites to special get-togethers, and treating them as advisors to what is going on with those places.

      It's odd that anyone on here can call this site a gossip place when they can't recognize the cult centers as so. Many of the parishioners "report" on the other parishioners activities to the ones in charge. If they listen to the reporting, they are encouraging the gossiping. This is one of the many ways of controlling their following.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous January 9, 2018 at 9:59 PM wrote:
    "Dolan should have told them they were invited but the law of abstinence was still in force."

    -Do YOU believe that law is in force?

    Because the irony is that it seems at least some Pistrina members do not, therefore they seem to think that meat was an acceptable option on Friday for Catholics anyway.

    And take SSPX chapels for example: It is well known that many who attend them do not agree with the SSPX about such matters as fasting, and abstinence rules. Some think SSPX rules can be ignored because they are too lax and others think the SSPX rules are too harsh and they can follow the current Novus Ordo rules.

    Does anyone here think that nowadays there is an absolute rule in force, like all Catholics must have known there was before the Revolution? Or do people think that nowadays Catholics can make up their own minds about what is currently legal and moral?

    Some SSPX material states that the current (Novus Ordo) legislation is valid, but also states that SSPX recommends some previous rules. But laity are free to choose.

    What is considered sinful or matter for sin varies from organization to organization and from priest to priest. Some priests do not want fasting/abstinence sins according to the traditional rules to be confessed, and make such clear to penitents.

    Who is the Authority that Catholics should look to on such matters these days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A frankly cogent general assessment of today's dilemma for traditional Catholics. Well done!

      As for the direct question to PL, what we as individuals believe is not the issue here.

      The SW Ohio cult appears to profess a belief in the traditional rules of fast and abstinence, at least if we read their calendars, pronouncements, etc. The "self-dispensation" for 29 Dec. must be judged against their profession and the admitted absence of legitimate ecclesiastical authority among their ranks.

      Delete
  25. Thank you for the excerpts from the moral theology books!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome.

      FYI: We chose Tanquerey because his works were frequently used in the U.S., Merkelbach because it's supposedly the textbook used at the pesthouse (here). We threw in Noldin because he addressed the commenter's remarks about interpersonal considerations.

      Delete
  26. And you spoiled it all with your boorish "pesthouse" comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We were only using our common terminology, which can't have spoiled the content of our message. We find "pesthouse" a very apt nickname for the sorry Swampland dump.

      Delete
  27. Reader

    Unlike Anonymous January 11, 2018 at 8:47 AM I neither find your assessment of the "pesthouse" boorish or spoiling the message.

    I am so thankful to have the message delivered, that I have no intention of killing the messenger who certainly is far more intelligent than most of these pompous pastors claim to be.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Below is a bad translation of the excerpt you supplied from Noldin.

    Please supply the whole applicable text in a good English translation.

    (1904), Summa Theologiae Moralis, ii, 665, d, γ (text cut from Google Books):
    Guests, who spend days and abstinence are to be invited to a meal, from the flesh of that which he knows to be prepared, by itself, is obliged to refuse the invitation, to accept it as well as it can be the only lawfully, whether they be of any refutation at a significant disadvantage to stuff the cause of offense, the enmity, even the merit of fear ought to fear. - Guest, who apart from the from the flesh of the expectations of an entire dinner was ready, he found, he is allowed to eat flesh, and not without grave inconvenience if it is not to leave the other food it can be to obtain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That must be a machine translation. It's dreadful!

      Send us an email (pistrinalit@gmail.com), and we'll supply you with a literal (and intelligible) translation. (If you're worried about identifying yourself, create a new Google e-mail account.)

      Delete
  29. Reader,

    Catholics whom are sedevacantists do not eat meat on Fridays. Period. They do not subscribe to Paul VI and his permission to eat flesh meat on Fridays as long as one does a replacement act of penance. This is a basic understanding of which all sedes should be aware. Sedes do not subscribe to JP II's new code of Canon Law. Again, basic. Informed sedes know that none of the clergy ordained and/or consecrated in this time of emergency (done legitimately under epikeia and supplied jurisdiction [ecclesia supplet]) have ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore they have no faculties of dispensation. For sedes it is a case of: under NO circumstances put meat in your mouth on Friday.
    Having said all that (for the benefit of the sedes), do you have an inkling of WHY Bp. Dolan was suggesting that sedes could decide on the occasion in question to allow meat stuffs to pass their lips, Reader? That is what we all want to know. What would be the justification, because obviously he (Bp. Dolan) had one in mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given your detailed explication of orthodox sede practice and belief with respect to the Friday abstinence, we cannot think of a righteous justification to allow the Gerties to put meat in their mouths on Dec. 29.

      Maybe he couldn't pass up a free lunch at The Farm, which we hear is justly famous for its rib-stickin', meaty fare. Maybe they're not real sedes down in West Chester.

      Who knows?

      Delete
    2. Anon 10:38 AM, I disagree. I am a sede and while I do not eat meat on Friday as a rule I also am ok with applying “typical” type dispensations. To say we are stuck exactly how things were pre VII with nobody to adjust the law is ridiculous. The Reader (whom I am adamantly opposed to in almost all regards) laid out some good reasons for this in the comments. I think the Reader is choosing to ignore the obvious answer to your questions which is simply SGG is attempting to follow the spirit of the Pre VII cannon law.

      Delete
    3. No, we're not ignoring anything. We just disagreed. Experience has shown that sedes often demand you follow the letter of the law, when it's convenient.

      BTW, you might want to study the difference between an "excusing cause" and a dispensation.

      Delete
    4. Anon @ 1:54 pm

      On which point do you disagree, my sede compadre?

      Specifically, Friday Abstinence

      Are far as sedevacantists are concerned it is quite clear when it comes to Friday abstinence. Abstain unless the excuse for not doing so is unequivocal. Otherwise it's a mortal sin. Simple. No sane sede can object to the above.

      Btw, do us (sedes) a favor and cease referring to Canon Law as "Cannon Law."
      It's embarrassing.

      Delete
  30. Reader,
    It obviously had nothing to do with not being able to pass up on the meaty delectables.

    The story is not complete until we know Bp. Dolan's reason for thinking people were able to eat meat on that Friday.

    I don't suppose you could find out the *official* reason people were made to feel it would be ok to chow down on the meat stuffs on offer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PL obviously can't find out from Dannie himself, but maybe some of his cultists can. We'd suggest one of them speak directly to "One Hand" and report here. If they can record his answer, we'll ask our techie if there's a way to post the audio file.

      Delete
    2. SGG follows historical norms on dispensations such as St. Patrick’s day was historically dispensed so in the spirit of the historical context and without a current hierarchy they apply that as best they can and thus consider themselves dispensed on St. Patrick’s day. Same concept for other things including the subject of this article.

      Delete
    3. There's a great difference between saying,

      In many places in the United States before Vatican II, it was customary to dispense from the fast on St. Patrick's Day (March 17) and from abstinence on the Friday following Thanksgiving

      and

      Those who attend the luncheon may consider
      themselves dispensed from the Friday abstinence.


      The former statement proposes a historical fact alone, and doesn't overly influence the Catholic's decision to abstain or not: the moral choice is still left to him or her. The latter clearly invites the cultling to choose not to abstain. Furthermore, the former has lawful precedence, whereas there's nothing in the latter to justify ignoring the law of Friday abstinence other than the appearance that the permission is official.

      Delete
  31. Reader,

    Do you eat meat on Friday?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Reader, we remind you, is not one person. Some of us are rational sedes, others R&R, still others traditional N.O. of some color. Each follows his or her conscience.

      As for this particular respondent, our family favors meatless Fridays. This evening, for instance, we prepared a wonderful Sicilian eggplant pasta dish, complemented by a very nice Nero d'Avola, purchased on sale from Whole Foods.

      Delete
  32. Reader,

    What is your position on how a sede should get an annulment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why?
      Have you ever been stuck in a nightmare living Hell Marriage?

      Delete
    2. Why can't Traditional Catholics receive annulments?
      What if they're married in the Novus Ordo and discover the truth 5-10 yrs later?

      Delete
    3. Because trads have nowhere to go to prove nullity in order to obtain a declaration by judicial process. In other words, there are no diocesan courts for matrimonial cases and no Sacred Roman Rota in Tradistan, and there never can be.

      Delete
  33. The ReaderJanuary 12, 2018 at 6:35 AM

    Please supply a literal and intelligible translation here for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, since the comments are pretty much played out by now, we don't see any harm in providing it here. At this late stage, it won't distract from the conversation:

      "A guest who on a day of abstinence is invited to a meal that he knows to be prepared from meats is obliged per se to decline the invitation, and he can then only accept it licitly if as a result of refusal [he suffers] a noteworthy disadvantage such as a grave offense: he ought justly to fear enmities. — A guest who outside expectation discovers the whole meal prepared from meats licitly eats meats if he can neither obtain other foods nor take leave without grave disadvantage."

      Delete
  34. I haven't been reading or participating in this, but just today did a very quick cursory view of the HUGE amount of posts in the comments area. My question is: I see that "The Reader" drives this whole thing, yet keeps speaking with "We" and "Our" talking about some kind of staff. Apparently you want to remain anonymous, but can we have the number of your staff? Can you tell us the number/names of them that answer question here with a fixed moniker, and how many post with "Anonymous"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WE ARE LEGION.

      No one here posts under "Anonymous." Some are authorized to post under "The Reader," others under "Pistrina Liturgica." Others are moderators.

      We assure you that nothing we post is of no value to the traditional Catholic seeking to escape the cults.

      Delete
  35. Thank you for such a clear, concise post relating indisputable facts. His Irrelevance has been granting these "dispensations" for years. He and his are merely playing church, as exposed in the Ode to Reality almost 10 years ago. A peaceful, prosperous 2018 to all who read these words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cult masters didn't realize it then, but publication of the Ode was a watershed, signaling the beginning of the end of the SW Ohio cult. It made it impossible to respect these religious buccaneers and forever changed attitudes to the "clergy." Dannie and Checkie were fools to have provoked the moral outrage. Wiser heads would have seen it coming and made amends. Instead, they opened a Pandora's box.

      The Feb. 22 "consecration" (LOL) will administer the coup de grâce. The long sectarian nightmare is almost over, practically speaking.

      Of course, the Readers won't abandon their posts until the cult kingpins fold their tattered tents for good and ruefully steal away.

      Decent trads everywhere will remain grateful to the redoubtable Gladius Veritatis. Best wishes to you and yours for 2018.

      Delete
    2. I distinctly remember that Ode to Reality and how you, Eamon, stated publicly that the Ode was not accusing them of anything! Now you say it was.

      Delete
    3. Where is "Eamon" to respond to this?

      Delete
    4. Let's see this "Ode."

      Delete
  36. Where can one find this "Ode"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't the ode l, but it has reference to it:
      https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/letter-to-a-doubter/

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link. I've found references, including the one above to a "watershed," but the thing itself seems oddly hidden under a bushel.

      Delete
    3. That's too bad as it was brilliantly written. I hope someone can find it.

      Delete
  37. I know it is true.
    You know it is true.
    But obviously you are too scared to post it because it shows how wrong you and Shea have been about the predicted demise.


    Back almost 10 years ago, together with other predictions which did not eventuate, Eamon also wanted people to believe in his prediction, nay personal assurance, of the then IMMINENT demise of SGG.
    Now a decade later people here still claim the demise of SGG is imminent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't get it, do you? $GG died in 2009. The only movement you see now is that caused by maggots on a decomposing corpse.

      Gladius was 100% right.

      Delete