Saturday, February 24, 2018

FOOD FOR THOUGHT


The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy. Hazlitt

Editor's Note:  Before we get started today, we want to take this opportunity to live up to our word. You may remember we promised to retract our formerly good opinion of the B'ville élite's business acumen if "One Hand Dan" were allowed to be one of the "co-consecrators" on February 22. Most of you know by now that His Deficiency played that part on Thursday; consequently, we hereby acknowledge that we gave the élite Bosses of the Bog too much credit. Maybe Wee Dan had to pinch hit if the Jellyfish bailed out at the last minute, excusing itself with, say, some convenient "necessity" on Long Island. (We'll discuss such possibilities next week in our post-mortem of the Sacrilege in the Swamp.) Whatever the cause, putting Dannie in the ceremony (along with the Skipper and Tony Baloney) was as dumb as dumb can be.

The Blast in the Morass imposed without necessity yet another uncanonical episcopus vagans upon a "bishop"-weary Sedelandia. Disgusted traditional Catholics would do well to ponder the following "meditation," with which years ago our favorite Pinheaded Pilgrim concluded a monograph now infamous for his hypocritical about-face (bold-face emphasis ours; quotation marks the author's):
Can we really take all this seriously and suppose that the “bishops” involved in such goings-on are the future of the Church? Impossible. Even to refer to them as “traditional Catholic bishops” lends too much respectability to the whole business, which is, in this writer’s opinion, very disrespectable indeed. 
One theme which dominates the affair from beginning to end is a gross and dangerous lack of prudence regarding the transmission of Apostolic Succession – a matter in which the slightest lack of prudence is inadmissible. St. Paul reminds us: “Lay not hands lightly on any man” – he does not say: “Lay hands quickly on anyone.” 
What is far more serious, however, is that these men claim that they are the “only legitimate authority” of the Catholic Church and that Catholics are “bound” to obey them. Further, they pretend to exclude from the Catholic Church those traditional priests and laymen who refuse to recognize their “authority” – something no traditional organization we know of presumes to do. By making such claims, these “bishops” have set up their own religion, with its own “magisterium,” its own “episcopal hierarchy,” and its own beliefs. It is a new religion, in spite of its trappings – and all its “episcopal consecrations,” self-important proclamations and inflated claims of “canonical authority” cannot make it into the Catholic religion. It is at the very least in the process of creating what will surely become a schismatic sect. 
The story will not end here – it is probable that “instant bishopswill continue to multiply exponentially, as among the “Old Catholics.” Our missionary friend in Mexico offers us his opinion on this rather gloomy prospect: 
We should have within a few years hundreds or thousands of bishops... without true vocations, the one more ignorant than the other, and an unavoidable cause of more division among traditionalists.
It is not impossible that one day these men will decide that their “authority” allows them to elect a “pope” from among their number. Perhaps we will see them trudge along the path already taken by Palmar de Troya, following some man who wears a tiara that looks like a lampshade and who cranks out “encyclicals” by the dozen. 
If such a day comes, we will then see the ultimate consequences of the movement which, for the moment, seems to promise “a prelate in every pot, and two bishops in every garage.” *
My, my! How self-interest and the passage of time can dramatically reverse a supposedly rock-solid conviction. The author may have ingloriously betrayed his stated principles, but his prediction came true: The always-aspirational swamp finally can boast of its very own pair of wandering "bishops."

Will "One-Hand Dan" let $GG fall behind the Swampland Joneses by not "consecrating" for the SW Ohio cult a second "bishop (?)"? Or could it be his "apostolate" is so tiny and his workload so light and airy that he can get by all on his little lonesome?

Or is it because there's no Mr. Moneybags ordering him around?

* If you'd like to read the whole article, click here.

126 comments:

  1. Why are you trying to change the definition of hypocrisy? We all know it does NOT mean changing one's mind and humbly admitting one was wrong about something. If that is what the devil is whispering to you, resist it. It's a huge deception with terrible ramifications.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We aren't.

      We hold it was a feigned humility and a simulated change of mind that came about when the cult masters realized the only way to an illicit "episcopate" was through a Thục line.

      BTW, it wasn't the Prince of this World who's whispering to us. He must prefer to commune with his Tradistani familiars. No, it was the Pilgrim himself with his terrible vision of a swarm of ignorant episccopi vagantes devastating Traddielandia.

      "Prelatasters" are multiplying like rabbits. We're wondering when "One Hand" is going to man up and join Pivvy, Jelly, and the Lowly Worm by parking another "bishop" in his cult's crumbling garage.

      Shall we start a pool?

      Delete
    2. As for "episcopi vagantes " (BTW, your editorial team didn't catch your misspelling of the Latin), did you know that under Pope Pius XII there were consecrations and ordinations performed behind the Iron Curtain (as well as in Mexico when the Communists were taking over) that were done without permission from Rome, as well as ordinations without the required Tridentine training, and that they were vagrant and only performed by epikeia and supplied jurisdiction...and that Rome found out and still considered them Catholic, and approved of what they did.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for catching the typo, but there's no way we can change it now.

      Yes, we do know about the unauthorized consecrations and ordinations etc. The problem today is we have no Rome to consider the sedes' deeds and approve of/reprove them. We must therefore consider them illicit.

      In our estimation, if by some miracle Rome were restored tomorrow, we think the Church would eventually condemn most of the sede consecrations and ordinations. Rome would first investigate each individual. Once their investigators compiled the dossiers, the Holy See would reject the majority. Those heroic souls who worked behind the Iron Curtain and in Mexico were very different from the religious buccaneers of Tradistan.

      Delete
    4. You got it wrong. The Catholics behind the Iron Curtain accepted them as Catholic and legitimate in using epikeia and supplied jurisdiction. Rome approved not only their continuation, but approved of what they did BEFORE Rome got news of it. You are going contrary to the mind of the Church. The Church didn't say those people behind the Iron Curtain should have shunned, condemned and ridiculed them.

      Delete
    5. But not all laymen accept every traddie operation as legitimate. Heck, the cults don't even accept each other. The SSPV isn't the only group to attack the validity of another's orders, you know. And until the Restoration, there is no Rome to approve anything, whether before or after.

      But we still think that when the Restoration occurs, the majority of the American sede troublemakers, even if long departed from this earth, will be anathematized for their bad example, love of filthy lucre, and lawless appropriation of the rights of genuine Catholic clergy.

      Indeed, it is our opinion that all the renegades will be condemned. Were the Restoration to happen soon, just the very few decent ones who are willing to be retrained and re-ordained would be allowed to join the ranks of the Roman Catholic clergy.

      As an aside, we add that if the Restoration is delayed for a very long time, there won't be any of the scumbags left for the Church to condemn. The cults are dying off, and if there's a break with Bergie, the traditional landscape will be utterly transformed.

      Delete
    6. Some years back when traveling in Spain, a few of us met an aged canon lawyer who had once worked in the Eternal City. During a long conversation over dinner, he shared his thoughts on how a Restored Rome might deal with the sede outlaws.

      In to his opinion, informed by a lifelong study of Romanitas, Rome would not countenance their actions because Providence had furnished all traditional Catholics with the SSPX, wherein they could practice the ancient faith and liturgy until better times returned.

      According to him, the sedes should have remained members of the society and worked from within to effect any reforms they felt necessary. He did add, however, that the Americans were so dreadfully educated and of such poor intellectual promise that they would have had no measurable influence.

      Delete
    7. Don't attack on that level - attempting reply to the very first comment. Consider yourself informed instead and be thankful.

      The Readers were on the same wavelength as myself - some posts of mine do not make it to nowatch but I think the one re Two Bishops in every garage may have made it. I learned of the 180 through jmjsite and the likely reason for it - the impending at the time consecration of his, Fr. Cekada's, long-time associate Fr. Dolan. Fr. Cekada changed his mind entirely about Thuc for reasons of personal security.

      Both Thuc and Lefebvre deserve to be rejected because very unfortunately, each man was weak. Strong clergy and men DO exist!

      Details for those who do not know:

      1. each signed directly under Paul VI the Ecumenism decree with 0 chance they didn't understand what it was doing AND

      2. when each attempted to abjure his signature there was no one with the required jurisdiction to RECEIVE the abjurations - no valid pope and of course Paul VI wasn't approached.

      SO:

      3. since jurisdiction does NOT come automatically with either ordination OR consecration we see that the jurisdiction Thuc and Lefebvre did have was automatically lost with the signatures. No more valid sacraments except baptism from them and their descendants.

      That's the reality.

      We see the ruination of the corridor.

      I am personally sure everyone involved believed he was doing the best he knew at the time and the times were chaotic.

      TRR, and the entire B'ville and West Chester corridor is toast.

      So, too, is Novusordowatch - shooting fish in a barrel is no challenge. I think they could open up to other input but now that the dye is cast with the Corridor, that is out of the question.

      The times overtook nowatch.

      I'm the former TRR member who was born protestant.

      Fantastic quote choice by The Readers; I forwarded it to jmjsite; the person in back of it will appreciate your efforts and is now clued in to your existence if he didn't already know of it before.

      Delete
    8. What specifically did N O Watch not allow you to post that you hadn't been allowed to post there before? I've seen LOTS of your comments by your profile name on their site, and they have almost always nothing to do with the post and are super repetitive. That is what most moderators call spam. Why not just start your own website on your little theme if you feel compelled to write about it incessantly?

      Delete
  2. What you are implying is - Father Cekada wrote that article against consecrations, and that he has always held the same since then even though he has publicly approved of Bishops Pivarunas, McKenna & Sanborn doing consecrations. That is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Dannie had been able to persuade Méndez to consecrate him, we believe the Cheeseball would have been as loud as the SSPV in condemning the Thục line. His "awakening" was a matter of convenience and necessity.

      It's absurd to think otherwise.

      Delete
    2. That is silly. You just produced a hypothetical "if" and proceeded to "believe" an outcome that never happened! That means nothing. Father C is not against the consecrations in the SSPV either.

      Again, it is absurd to think that while Fr. C publicly approved of all of these consecrations he internally within himself condemns them all. Absurd.

      Delete
    3. We're just speculating that his approval was helped along, shall we say, by Dannie's (forced) choice of lineage. Let's say we know these guys' methodology well enough to make a strong inference.

      And BTW, you should look into the past condemnations of the SSPV for the "clandestine" consecration.

      Delete
    4. We're just speculating that his approval was helped along, shall we say, by Dannie's (forced) choice of lineage. Let's say we know these guys' methodology well enough to make a strong inference.[SPECULATION, AND ASSERTION MADE WITHOUT PROOF]

      And BTW, you should look into the past condemnations of the SSPV for the "clandestine" consecration. [COMMENT MAY HAVE SOME FACTUAL BASIS]

      Delete
    5. Necessity is a great force in making us become fully serious about considering something carefully. Having other people help convince us of something is perfectly normal and expected.

      Hypocrisy means double-standard, condemning other for doing something yet doing that very something for oneself. That is not what Fr. C has been doing. The criticism of the Mendez consecration was ad hominem and how they went about it. Ultimately, Fr. C recognizes Bishop Kelly as functioning legitimately as the other Bishops he has approved of.

      Delete
    6. 25 Feb. 10:15

      Something speculative is conjectural in nature and as such is anterior to proof. We used language that clearly indicated our judgment was based on our gut impression — which resulted from years of observing the cult masters. The same impression, 10:23, tells us that all this approval is an act of feigning to affirm what is not affirmed in reality. In our view, it's all "PlayChurch." Nothing is firmly held. Expediency reigns in Tradistan. None deserves the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    7. Go to JMJsite.com and study there: the same problems exist for everyone you mention and Fr. Cekada knows that or almost knows it because he evidently isn't focusing on it.

      JMJsite gives the low-down on everything CMRI related and more: from a priest INVALIDLY ORDAINED who spent the remainder of his life after the mid1980's in a kind of penance of informing others about the truth I am now only partially aware of - which is devastating re: jurisdiction.

      He doesn't function as a priest, and he doesn't dissemble at all.

      So as his pupil I guess neither will I -

      ALL bishops having any connection with Schuckhardt, Thuc, Lefebvre are INVALID. Period. T learn why do what I suggest.

      I have no interest in complicating matters; I wish they were as simple as possible but once informed it is impossible to go back.

      Delete
    8. Nandarani 33February 25, 2018 at 5:04 PM

      "He doesn't function as a priest, and he doesn't dissemble at all.

      So as his pupil I guess neither will I"

      Nandarani,
      Do you claim to have Holy Orders, or do you claim to be in training for Holy Orders?

      Delete
    9. What about the SSPV/Bishop Mendez clergy?
      I believe all Thuc SSPX and Mendez clergy are valid.
      Stay home or go to the Novus Ordo/Eastern Rites who are now receiving orders from the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
  3. Editor's Note: Before we get started today, we want to take this opportunity to live up to our word. You may remember we promised to retract our formerly good opinion of the B'ville élite's business acumen if "One Hand Dan" were allowed to be one of the "co-consecrators" on February 22.

    I must admit I was a “bit” surprised that One Hand was a co-consecrator, but, only a bit surprised. It's all traddie politics, and the only absolute with these people is there are no absolutes. Obviously Sinburn and the Selway’s believed it was more to their advantage than not to have him as a co-consecrator. Had the wind been blowing another direction the day they made the decision, who knows, One Hand might’ve been omitted.

    I’m curious and forgive me if I missed the information, but, was the Jellyfish at the ceremony? What about McMahon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're waiting for additional confirmation, but our reporters tell us Jelly was not in attendance.

      Apparently last Sunday he had another "priest" substitute for him and there was no Mass scheduled until Friday, which led us to believe he would attend. However, we then heard two reports that he had recently been seen on Long Island. Whether he was there at the time of the consecration, we aren't certain. Someone told us that no one from his chapel planned to go to the Blast in the Morass, so it is possible that the Highlanders applied pressure.

      As for Dennis the Menace, we haven't heard a thing. While we're waiting for photos, we've got inquiries out, and we'll update here if we learn anything this week. A caveat: photos were prohibited so we'll have to rely on cult-sanctioned pix, we suppose.

      You are 100% right about Traddie politics. It could be they reasoned that Geert Stuyer's participation as a co-consecrator was enough to guarantee a valid "consecration," so they could put aside any concerns about "One-Hand Dan" or the Liénart stain on the Lowly Worm.

      In our view, given the antipathy down in the swamp for the $GG crew, we'd still guess that the Wee One was a definite second choice for the rôle of a co-consecrator.

      Delete
    2. Bishop Geert is beyond valid as is Bishop Sanborn.

      Delete
    3. Neither is "beyond valid." But Stuyver will always have a slightly better presumption because his orders are free from the "Liénart stain."

      Delete
    4. There is no "Lienart stain" other than rampant unfounded rumors with absolutely no proof.
      Additionally,the traditional rite of Holy Orders provide Matter Form & Intention.
      It's ridiculous to bash Cardinal Lienart's holy orders and I don't even attend the SSPX.

      Delete
    5. No one is bashing the cardinal's orders. But the story of his deathbed confession must give us all pause about those who received orders from his hands.

      Until the allegation is shown to be utterly without foundation, there will be a Liénart stain. Perhaps it is only a smudge, but a blight it will remain.

      The abp. should have taken up the reported offer of conditional orders.

      Delete
  4. NOTICE

    Our comments monitors inform us that a spammer has mistaken the Reader's use of familiars at 7:14 for familiar spirit.

    For the second day in a row, let us cite the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to show there are other definitions:

    familiar...B n. 1. A member of a person's family or household....b 2 A close friend or associate; a close acquaintance of.

    This was the clear sense of the Reader's usage in reference to the cult associates of Old Scratch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sins of the tongue are serious sins:

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/btongue.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's no sin in condemning wrongdoing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apostolic succession if we lose it is devastating. It is tied in to jurisdiction and since jurisdiction must be set in concrete and today isn't is bad bad bad. Those who were around and conscious pre 1958 have a lot to suffer and a lot for which to be t h a n k f u l .

      Delete
    2. Apostolic succession will never be lost, it’s impossible. It continues on despite this crisis in the Church in the old Roman Rite and eastern rite bishops.

      Delete
    3. Gene (or any other knowledgable person who can give a response based on fact rather than personal opinion): According to traditional Catholic theology, do formal heretical but nevertheless sacramentally valid bishops (such as the Eastern "Orthodox") possess apostolic succession? In other words, does one have to profess the integral Catholic faith as a condition for being a true apostolic successor?

      Delete
    4. While you wait for Gene's reply, the following from Parente's Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (1951), may be of service:

      "A distinction is made between formal apostolicity... and material apostolicity. This last means apostolic origin but with a lack of legitimate continuity, in so far as it is separated from Peter living in the Roman pontiff, to whom the bishops are subject just as the Apostles in their time were to Peter. The schismatic Oriental Church, styled the "orthodox" church, has only material apostolicity."

      Delete
    5. Thank you. So when Gene says apostolic succession will never be lost, I presume he is speaking of formal apostolicity. Honestly, I don't see this formal apostolicity in those who are going along with the Vatican II apostasy, whether actively or passively. Neither do I see it in those SSPX bishops who say the efficient causes of this apostasy are still "popes". As problematic as it is, I realize, it's only sede bishops I see who are perpetuating succession both materially and formally.

      Delete
    6. Anon 2/26 7:35PM:

      Yes, I am speaking of formal apostolocity, material succession alone is irreverent to this crisis except in regards of knowing who out there has valid orders.

      A bishop of the Church cannot just automatically lose his office except for heresy, schism or apostasy, and that has not been proven against the old Roman rite bishops (pre-68) of the Church, at least not in many of the cases.

      The eastern rites of the Church have kept all of their sacramental rites preserved and all are unquestionably valid. Their hierarchies are not subject to the Roman rite bishops, and work independently. Those eastern rite bishops who have not lost their Faith and have become public heretics have certainly kept the apostolic succession.

      Traditionalist (Sedevacantist or R&R) bishops cannot have the apostolic succession, as they have no claim on any office, and by that have no jurisdiction, which is essential for the apostolic succession. With the exception of a couple of deceased Sede bishops, none have ever even made the claim of jurisdiction or an office in the Church.

      No jurisdiction means no apostolic succession.





      Delete
    7. Thank you, Gene, for that insightful perspective.

      Delete
    8. Gene February 26, 2018 at 12:22 PM

      I think you meant:
      Despite this crisis in the Church, it continues on in the old Roman Rite and eastern rite bishops.

      The way you phrased it, it reads that succession continues despite crises in the Church in the old Roman Rite and in the eastern rite bishops.

      Delete
    9. Who and where are the bishops consecrated before July 1968 now ordaining & consecrating according to the pre-July 1968 rite of Holy Orders,Gene?
      Be specific please.

      Delete
    10. Gene, while I appreciate your perspective, I do need to add that I am acquainted with a number of Eastern rite clergy. There are two types, in my experience: those who are every bit as modernist as their Roman rite counterparts (despite the traditional liturgy and valid orders) and those who have a Lefebvrist or Gallican-like mentality vis-a-vis the office of the Roman Pontiff, practicing an R&R type of internal dissent in doctrinal and pastoral matters they find too difficult to swallow. There are no Eastern prelates at the episcopal level who are blissfully ignorant of the import of the revolutionary changes. And if they were so, they are not sufficiently competent to be guiding their sheep through this crisis. They have embraced the Revolution or they quietly reject the prerogatives of the Roman papacy. All of the Eastern rite patriarchs were represented at the Second Vatican Council. It was their council as much as it is was their Roman rite confreres'. You might have valid sacraments in the Eastern rite, but unless you go to one of the few sede Eastern clerics, you won't have the integral Catholic faith.

      Delete
    11. Anon 2/28 10AM:

      They are not consecrating or ordaining anyone. They are very old and think they are retired.

      They are the last bishops of the Roman rite. So, when they die out, if the Church has not reformed by then, the hierarchy of the Roman rite of the Church will have come to an end.



      Delete
    12. Anon 2/28 11:39AM:

      I agree, there are modernists in the Eastern rites, so of course Catholics need to be careful. There are also priests who unquestionably believe the Faith. The eastern rites are, in my view, in a very analogous situation to Roman rite Catholics of the mid-1960’s. There were bishops, priests and laity that were orthodox and others modernist, and others who were just clueless.

      Whether they (the Eastern rite bishops) are worthy to guide us is a separate question as to whether they are legitimate bishops of the Catholic Church. Unless they lose their offices by professing public heresy, they stay in office, no matter how unworthy or pathetic they may be in their inaction of not opposing rampant public heresy that can be found everywhere.

      If you have ever read Vatican II, you would know that it’s hard to pin down a specific heresy, it used ambiguous language that could be interpreted as both heretical or orthodox. It also used qualifying statements that gave cover for possible orthodox interpretations.

      You may argue, and I would agree that the deliberate use of ambiguous language itself is something the Church would never do, and it shows the malice of the Council Fathers who were complicit, up to and including Paul VI for using it in teaching documents of the “Church.” While this is a deplorable act and is part of a case of heresy against Paul VI and those who cooperated in this, it also presents a case for the defense of the orthodox bishops who signed the documents while still believing completely the Catholic Faith.

      Delete
    13. I think a more apt comparison for those Eastern rite clergy you're referring to would be those English clergy who still had the faith but were de facto members of Henry VIII's new sect, being uninformed about the directives Rome wanted them to take or perhaps just thinking everything would eventually resolve on its own in a matter of years or decades. We know how useful they were in the long-term.

      Delete
    14. The Eastern Rites have been using Novus Ordo "bishops" for holy orders and holy oils since the early 2000's.
      They're not all valid like they were before 2000/2001.
      I disagree and think the
      Thuc Mendez Lefevbre and Duarte-Costa lines will keep valid traditional holy orders and Apostolic Succession alive.
      The valid V2 Novus Ordo bishops consecrated before July 1968 will not ordain nor consecrate anyone using the traditional rites.
      They infiltrated the Church to wipe it off the face of the Earth.

      Delete
    15. There has been some Conciliar priests who changed rites, so yes, one must be careful. But, this is not widespread, the eastern rite bishops ordain their own men and consecrate their own bishops, using their own eastern rites of ordination and consecration of bishops. Any exceptions to this are few and far between.

      I always urge people to find out who ordained the eastern rite priests at the parishes near them, just to be sure, I also urge this fir people who go to SSPX by the way, as they use also Conciliar rite ordained men who are not conditionally ordained.

      I have personally never met an eastern rite priest who was ordained outside of their rite or by bishops outside of their rite. I have many friends that go to eastern rite Churches, different rites and different places and they have never encountered this either. So, while I acknowledge the problem exists, it’s not widespread.

      Btw, the Thuc, Mendez, Lefebvre, and Duarte Costa lines passed down orders, not Apsotolic Succesion. Orders without jusrisction is just that, orders, it’s not Apostolic Succesion.

      Delete
    16. Gene, you are mistaken about this. There are comments on this blog that mention the fact that Bishops & priests have/can legitimately, without sin, consecrate and ordain and server the faith when there is a near extinction of available Sacraments and no access to the hierarchy for permission. This happened behind the Iron Curtain. "Without sin" is the key point here, regardless of what you personally think about mission, jurisdiction or Apostolic Succession.

      Delete
    17. To use your logic, every or any layman can get himself ordained and consecrated. It’s all necessary now, due to the emergency, according to the traditionalists. If you think your ready to be a priest, just find a bishop willing to ordain you.

      Btw, it’s not my personal opinions, it’s the teaching if the Church that matters, and the Church is clear on the matters of mission, jurisdiction, and Apostolic Succesion. Many of the these sources are readily and easily available and scanned on the Trad Cath forum library.

      Delete
  7. In your opinion, was there any significance to the feast day selected (St Peter's Chair of Antioch vs say St Peter Damian (no meat!)or St Matthias)--and if so what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our guess is that Thursday was the most convenient day for the invited "clergy." Many would have obligations back in their home chapels (Stations, Lenten devotions, etc.) Additionally, scheduling on any of the Ember Days might have negatively impacted the celebratory feasting, since some of the visiting "clergy" might have objected to a Dannie-like dispensation.

      Delete
    2. Think again...think St Peter...Apostle.

      Delete
    3. Sanborn thinks he's St Peter--you must be kidding (I thought he thought he was Jesus).

      Delete
  8. Pius XII only spent 2 yrs in the seminary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardly a defense of the malformed sedes when you read this:

      "In 1894, aged 18, Pacelli began his theology studies at Rome's oldest seminary, the Almo Collegio Capranica, and in November of the same year, registered to take a philosophy course at the Jesuit Pontifical Gregorian University and theology at the Pontifical Roman Athenaeum S. Apollinare. He was also enrolled at the State University, La Sapienza where he studied modern languages and history. At the end of the first academic year however, in the summer of 1895, he dropped out of both the Capranica and the Gregorian University. According to his sister Elisabetta, the food at the Capranica was to blame. Having received a special dispensation he continued his studies from home and so spent most of his seminary years as an external student. In 1899 he completed his education in Sacred Theology with a doctoral degree awarded on the basis of a short dissertation and an oral examination in Latin."

      Delete
    2. The Capranica was where 19th century modernism blossomed and evolved.
      Pius XII was a spiritual grandson of Cardinal Rampolla the leftist lunatic.
      It would explain why Pius XII promoted Montini (Paul VI) so many times.
      Nevertheless he still only spent 2 total yrs in seminary.
      God bless.

      Delete
    3. But note his dispensation as an external student of the seminary.

      Delete
  9. The Reader.Do you ever think Piv will consecrate a bishop for the CMRI?In our view it will never happen will ages as several "priests" have made the comment to us he wants total control.Anyone who stands in his way,he makes it very difficult.Pages could be written on this.Your thoughts please

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, we don't, at least not for a very long time. We'd guess he sees Big Don's action as a sign of weakness, a surrender, a relinquishing of the stage, as it were. Furthermore, he's got to realize the Kid is no threat to his influence. In fact, he probably suspects that in comparison with Junior, he looks pretty darn good to many on the outside. We'd also be inclined to think he suspects the Clone has no ambition to expand and compete with the CMRI.

      Delete
    2. Anon. 5:44, I heard the CMRI has regular elections to designate its leader. Being the only bishop is not a guarantee that one will be the head, if such is true. I don't believe the priests who gave you your information are current CMRI priests. You have an agenda.

      Delete
    3. In addition to 7:46's comment, I would like to add I've heard the CMRI takes a vote on its major decisions at their semi-annual priest meetings. There is no absolute dictatorship. Anon. 5:44 clearly has an axe to grind with the CMRI. I think he's either associated with the CMRI's "competition" or has had some personal falling out with them. It's obvious. I'm sure we can look forward to much more anti-CMRI bashing from him on this forum.

      Delete
    4. You don't know Pivarunas.Our family left MSM after the Kerfoot scandal.

      Delete
    5. Then I probably know him a little better than you do then. Hope you don't give up Catholicism entirely because of the Judas scandal.

      Delete
  10. This is in response to "The Reader Feb 25 - 2:42pm" and "PistrinaLiturgica" about the same time. They replied to the post by me (Anonymous) mentioning the vagrant clergy behind the Iron Curtain. Both responded but clearly show they did not wrap their heads around that historical fact or its logical implications. I need to clarify by elaborating.

    1) This blog recognizes that the opinions of sede vacante & sede plena are BOTH legitimate opinions. Logically, this means this blog recognizes as legitimate all reactions that also directly flow from those two beliefs.

    2) There is a Catholic principle that if Rome is aware of a religious practice, and does nothing, it is called "tacit approval" of that practice. This means that if a Catholic believes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are true popes, they must also happily believe that the sedes are approved in what they are doing.

    3) This also means that the group behind this blog must happily approve of the sede groups as legitimate apostolates.

    4) Another facet, is that in the 1950's behind the Iron Curtain, Catholic bishops had no possible contact with Rome, and because the sacraments were in danger, they consecrated and ordained without explicit permission from Rome. Later, Rome approved of what they did, and approved of them continuing. This means that the group behind this blog must happily respect the work of sedes to consecrate, ordain and provide the Sacraments. It means they cannot deny them the title of being "Catholic". It means it is legitimate for clergy to exist on epikeia & supplied jurisdiction without be ridiculed or condemned for it. Nor can the bloggers here rightfully call them "renegade" or question apostolic succession. They must also happily allow them the title of "bishop" as did Rome. If it is happily accepted, it entails it is heartily accepted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pace, but they are outside the Church, for they have no mission from her. Furthermore, this group believes that many sede lines, which began as valid, have been vitiated through ineptitude.

      Delete
    2. If Rome approved of emergency consecrations/ordinations then they DO have mission.

      Delete
    3. Can you produce Rome's approval of the sede renegades' consecrations on the grounds of emergency?

      Delete
    4. You mean, you don't understand the Catholic principle of Rome's "tacit approval"?

      Delete
    5. 26 Feb. 8:18 PM

      We certainly do.

      However, we are strongly disinclined to believe Rome has given tacit approval for these "bishops."

      One justification for our conviction is a 2001 letter we have before us issued by Ratzinger's Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei and signed by its then-secretary Tarcisio Bertone, who later became B16's Cardinal Secretary of State, concerning "the sad case" of a priest "who was ordained a bishop by [a] schismatic traditionalist 'Archbishop.'"

      The letter goes on to hope that the individual (who, BTW, is a sedevacantist) "will eventually repent and seek absolution from the grave latae sententiae censure incurred and reconciliation with the Catholic Church."

      To our eyes, that suggests a rather express DISAPPROVAL!.

      Delete
    6. You are insane. As if Ratfink's disapproval amounts to a hill of beans.

      Delete
    7. 1:55

      Our reply was in response to 8:18's (apparent) allegation of Rome's tacit approval of the sedes. Why don't you follow the whole thread before inserting your foot in your mouth? And if you happen to be 8:18, then we can't help you and we won't continue the conversation.

      Delete
    8. (FYI, I am not Anon 8:18.)
      Rome in the 1950's approved of Bishops who performed consecrations and ordinations of men who did not not have full seminary training, without Rome's approval, for the reason that the Sacraments were almost extinct for a sizable portion of Catholics. Rome did not consider them renegade or non-Catholic, and fully considered them priests and bishops with a legitimate mission.

      Now, why are you treating sedes the opposite? Do you consider there to be a substantial difference in circumstances?



      Delete
    9. Yes.

      The situation is entirely different, especially since some hold that there is no authoritative, legitimate "Rome" to approve or disapprove of the sedes. Remember, when we speak of Rome in this fashion, the word is metonymy for the lawful government of the Church.

      In the instances you cite, there is (for the most part) no doubt among Traditionalists that Rome was legitimate. That is not the case today.

      Delete
    10. What you just gave us is a brain burp. Believe it or not, you confused the concept of "before" and "after".

      Sedes not only comply with the SAME circumstances, but exceed them "a fortiori". Back then there was a legitimate authority in Rome, but geographically they could not contact them. Today, metaphysically they cannot contact authoritative Rome because the authority is NOT there, and the whole world is in the same condition, not merely a small geographic area.

      The point? Rome APPROVED of ordinary Catholics ACCEPTING bishops and less-than-canonically trained priests who were NOT YET approved by Rome!

      Are you criticizing legitimate Rome for approving of lay Catholics doing so?


      Delete
    11. Nope.

      We don't believe even a restored Rome will approve of any Catholics' accepting the Tradistani scum. They are patently illegitimate to real Catholics. Only degenerates believe these creeps to be authentic.

      Delete
    12. That's it? That's all you got? Just a will to turn your head when the truth is staring at you? Where's the crisp detail of proof as spent time on proving a certain type of bird does chatter?

      Now...tell us, in what year, and why, did Donald J. Sanborn become a non-Catholic?

      Delete
  11. Thank you Reader for your reply to Anonymous February 26,2018 5.44PM question.

    This thought of Pivarunas having another bishop in CMRI has been in our thoughts for a while.No,you are right,he wants total control.Most of his "priests" are losers.

    Look forward to next weeks article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 6:53 give us a name of a CMRI priest who is not a "loser" and why he differs from one you consider is a loser.

      Delete
  12. Since Pivarunas consecrated Dolan not sure why in charity Pivarunas wasn't also at the consecration. Surely irrational.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps someone else out there can help, but we seem to remember that a large number of Dannie's old cronies refused to attend his "consecration" by Pivvy. One guy from way up north said something about its being "scandalous." Whether the Donster attended, we have no idea, but we didn't see him in the video.

      All that aside, we don't think the Pivmeister would be welcome in the swamp after having snatched Our Lady of the Sun from the Lowly Worm.

      Delete
    2. Get real. Bishop Pivarunas would not have been invited anyway. Anyone who knows anything about the sede scene knows that.

      Delete
    3. "in charity"? "irrational"? What are you talking about?! Nothing against reason or charity to not participate. Everyone knows that they have enough differences in their apostolates that make their direct cooperation not happen. Even St. Paul had to separate from Barnabas, as related in Holy Scriptures.

      Delete
    4. Is Dolan separated from Pivarunas? What is different about Pivarunas now than the day Dolan bought a bishopric from him? If Sanborn shuns Pivarunas, how much more should he shun Dolan and Cekada? But yet Dolan and Cekada teach/ give spiritual retreats to Sanborn's seminarians.

      The whole thing is so un-Catholic. They are like mafia bosses but instead of buying machine guns, they go buy some "anointing"--like schuckardt did--so that they can start a priest factory to preserve the "true church" by cutting out the other "bishops." They already make their own rules by bending the rules whenever they feel like it. Seems the devil has eaten them bones and all.

      Delete
  13. So do you want your readers to leave the Thuc and Lefebvre groups and return to the Novus Ordo?
    What about all those Novus Ordoites leaving for the various Protestant denominations? How will you rope them in. For every one Traditional Catholic there are probably 10,000 Novus Ordoites (if not more) who have quit and joined non-Catholic churches.
    Paul VI himself said to follow our conscience as the supreme guide.
    7000 Catholics quit the Church daily in Latin America. Turn your vitriolic hosepipe onto them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We blame the men responsible for the defections, both the Novus Ordites and the sedes. The people are victims of bad religious leaders.

      We want everyone to return to the true faith, which is not to be found in Tradistan.

      Delete
    2. Just where does one go to find the True Church? To Williamson’s group? He claims women who wear pants are sinning. Also, he is an anti-Semite and probably a misogynist. To the FSSP? The FSSP Priest, I know went to a NO Seminary and he is money hungry and is constantly begging for money. Just where does one go??

      Delete
    3. Some would say, "Stay home alone!" Others say, "Go East, faithful Catholic." It's a matter for your conscience. We can say that more of us here at PL have taken or are exploring the Eastern route. Gene can recommend some good online resources for those who want to consider an Oriental rite.

      Delete
    4. Anon 2.27.18 @ 2:33 Where to go to find the True Church. "To Williamson’s group? He claims women who wear pants are sinning. Also, he is an anti-Semite and probably a misogynist."

      Are you sayin' Sanborn/Dolan say women who wear pants aren't sinning??? Many here have stated repeatedly that head clergy at both SGG & MHT are misogynist.
      You might consider them anti-semite also since they belonged to SSPX w/Wmson.

      You seem like a Goldilocks kind of person--perhaps you should consider buying yourself some orders from a Thuc line bishop and start your own "true church." That way you can make your own rules and instead of putting any money into the collection plate, you can constantly beg money for yourself.

      Delete
    5. "Go East, faithful Catholic."

      But many eastern clergy are shot. Vatican 2 modernist dupes just like the roman novus ordo clerics.
      Their liturgy is often altered too, sometimes on a local level. Also translated sometimes into vulgar tongue.
      East is no safe haven.
      One must be very discerning and very careful.

      Delete
    6. Reader and all, numerous eastern rite resources on the Trad Cath forum. I would urge anyone who wants to better understand eastern rite Catholicism to look through the sub forum, watch the videos and read through the information.

      Link to the Eastern Catholic sub forum: http://tradcath.proboards.com/board/48/eastern-catholic-resources

      Also, here is a directory of many of the Eastern rite liturgies found in the U.S., each directory is broken down by states in alphabetical order, so it’s fairly easy to use: http://tradcath.proboards.com/board/36/ukrainian-eastern-rites-parish-directory

      Delete
    7. Give names of Thuc bishops who randomly consecrate bishops and ordain priests?
      I have been trying to the supposed hundreds of Thuc bishops talked About online and can only find a few in the U.S. & Mexico plus the big few names in Europe.

      Delete
    8. Slupski for one. McKenna , too, was pretty free with the orders for a while until Jelly put an end to it.

      But there are dozens, if not scores, of "bishops" with Thục lineage around. You can start with the Boyle site, although it's very out of date. A little work on your browser will turn up a lot of names. They may not all hand out orders indiscriminately, but you'll get the idea that they multiply like rabbits.

      Delete
    9. I have looked into McKenna and he didn't consecrate too many priests.(though he ordained a tad more freely)
      Bp.Slupski,though contrary to ugly rumor,HAS NOT consecrated more than a handful.(I know this for a fact!)
      Like Bp.McKenna,he did ordain a tad more freely.
      I am thinking the
      "hundreds of Thuc bishops" is an ugly rampant lie ála
      Cardinal Lienart.

      Delete
    10. Why do the majority of “Trads” seem so angry and bitter most of the time? Hardly, “the fruits of the spirit” (love, joy, peace, long suffering, etc.). Makes one wonder....

      Delete
    11. The hundreds of Thuc line bishops came through the lines Thuc’s earlier consecrations. There are hundreds through Palma de Troya alone, not counting the others.

      Delete
    12. No one is angry and I asked for specific names...
      God bless.

      Delete
    13. You can find most of the names at this link:

      http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Thuc_Consecrations.html

      It’s not up to date, as Mr. Boyle, the man who did this research stopped updating it years ago, but it’s a good place to start if you want the names and other information about the Thuc line bishops, and the other traditionalist lines. His list is very detailed and extensive.

      You can also find many names of the current traditionalist bishops on this chart that was posted on Susipe Domine: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18726.0

      I certainly don’t agree with the name of the chart, as these vagus bishops are hardely the hierarchy, but it is good for information purposes. Even this chart, although close to accurate is not up to date.

      Delete
    14. This is extremely out of date and T.Boyle isn't even sure if most of this is right as I asked him.
      So I guess the Hundreds of Thuc bishops randomly ordaining & consecrating is one big rumor like Lienart.
      Thanks anyway Gene but this is older material I have looked into yrs ago.

      Delete
    15. Well well,the
      'hundreds of Thuc bishops' seems to be an Urban legend.
      I always wondered why I couldn't ever find more than a handful of Thuc bishops in the western world via online.

      Delete
    16. There’s a new book on Palma de Troya, Boyle, if anything most likely didn’t get all the names of the Palma bishops, so more work would need to be done.

      They consecrated bishop after bishop after bishop. According to Lundberg, by 1978, there were already over 90 of these Thuc line bishops in the group.

      You can learn more here: http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1239/holy-palmarian-church

      You can find the PDF for Lundberg’s book at the end of the second post.

      Delete
    17. When false Pope Paul VI passed away,Clemente (the self professed "Pope") changed Holy Orders.(1978)
      Any Diaconate Ordination or Consecration performed after this time was not conducted in the traditional Catholic rite of Holy Orders.
      Thus,their "clerics" received "orders" in a non-catholic rite after the Summer of 1978.

      Delete
  14. Whether the Donster attended, we have no idea, but we didn't see him in the video.

    Sinburn did not attend Dan’s consecration.
    The only priests in attendance were from the CMRI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the confirmation.

      One of the Readers excerpted the following passages from Kelly's The Sacred and The Profane (pp. 22-23):

      A Scandalous Affair

      "Fr. Sanborn was conspicuously absent from the consecration of Fr. Dolan. He did not attend because it was a scandalous affair. According to Fr. Daniel Ahern, the only non- Mount St. Michael priest present was Fr. Cekada. In a May 30, 1994, letter to Catholic Restoration, Fr. Cekada accused Fr. Ahern of setting up a 'false standard' by which he judged Mount St. Michael's. He suggested that from a theological point of view Fr. Ahern was guilty of 'relapses into selective amnesia or chronic pomposity.'

      "Fr. Ahern responded in a letter dated August 26, 1994, which appeared in the same issue of Catholic Restoration as Fr. Cekada's letter. Fr. Ahern wrote: 'In the past, MSM [Mount St. Michael] was a destructive cult, and Schuckardt's evil entered into the very marrow of the organization. The result was to make traditional Catholic doctrine and practice loathsome to people of good will; that is to scandalize them.'...

      "Fr. Ahern did not attend the consecration of Fr. Dolan because it was scandalous. Fr. Sanborn refrained from going for the same reason despite his relationship with Fr. Cekada and Fr. Dolan. However, he acted quickly to minimize the potential damage to their growing association. He reportedly gave "Bishop" Dolan a very expensive pectoral cross, costing seven thousand dollars, to celebrate his scandalous consecration."

      Delete
  15. Where is Ercoli in the photos of the consecration? Other than the Italian, it seems like the only ones who were there were Sgg and mht. Maybe tradland wasn't as supportive as one may have thought over this consecration? Or maybe no one was invited so that there wouldn't be another issue, like that if the past? I don't think I saw zapp, berry, Ercoli, McMahon, or any other independent once associated with Sanborn?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the program, My-Way Carlito was a member of the schola that performed the propers of the Mass.

      We're waiting for more photos, too. We'd really like to find out if the cult was stupid enough to invite Dennis the Menace. As for his running buddy, Collins, we'd bet the farm he wasn't invited: nobody wanted a repeat of the shouting match that occurred at the Kid's "ordination" to the subdiaconate.

      Incidentally, several reliable reports say the overall attendance was much less than the 300 (or more) originally predicted.

      Delete
    2. There appears to be a homemade video online on bede nkaumke's Facebook page. I could be wrong, but I don't see Ercoli in the video. There's one person that I cannot make out though, so maybe that's him?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous February 27, 2018 at 4:08 PM
      Does anyone have the link?

      Delete
    4. Thursday is a terrible day to host a consecration ceremony.
      They had to know this while preparing & planning.

      Delete
    5. Bp.Pivarunas is probably worried the young bishop who offers the pre-Pius XII liturgy will possibly upstage him in 5 yrs.

      Delete
    6. Agreed, especially if the younger guy had flexible principles.

      Delete
  16. I look at the chosen lead-in to this week's blog and I see it is from Hazlitt:

    "The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy."

    This blog is presenting this quote as being a true principle, but it is not. Pistrina is trying to give us the false notion that hypocrites cannot convert! Yes, they can. Hazlitt was wrong; there is no Catholic principle that says otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The epigraph speaks for itself.

      Delete
    2. I agree, it "speaks for itself". It speaks a false principle that hypocrites cannot genuinely convert. Yes, they can.

      Delete
    3. You misread Hazlitt. He's referring to a dyed-in-the-wool, inveterate hypocrite who can't know the meaning of repentance.

      Delete
  17. A parishioner just made the news:

    https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/02/26/suburban-cincinnati-office-park-white-nationalists-have-found-their-lawyer-and-ally/338365002/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SGG.org has gone through a Stalinist purge as they have pulled all the bulletins mentioning this parishioner. So will he still serve Holy Hour? Have Masses said for him? Be allowed to enter St. Gertrude the Great?

      Delete
    2. "We almost didn’t make it as the plane’s deicer wasn’t working, and the pilot threatened to take us to Indianapolis. But prayers were working. It was, after all, the feast day of Our Lady of Loretto, the very patroness of air travel, as I reminded Her. She heard me, and we landed in River City, only a little late. Jim Kolenich was waiting for me (God bless him and all of our volunteer drivers), and the roads were pretty good as we returned."

      --- One-Hand Dan in his Bishop's Corner of December 15, 2013

      http://archive.is/ejJXo

      Delete
    3. It’s sad, yet unsurprising, that these people are celebrated in Tradistan.

      Delete
  18. Hello Reader/Pistrina Liturgica staff

    Someone above made the comment about someone having a axe to grind about CMRI and that they were a he.I know many Trad Catholic women like myself(mother of 9 children) who often read this website.They could say the same thing about this website,it's staff and you Reader for having a axe to grind about all of the sede cults.If it was not for this website,many would not know the truth.We were once blinded by CMRI and could write a book about that group.My husband and I along with our children left back in 2007 along with others when the 16 "sisters" stood up to
    'Bp" Pivarunas.You deserve our prayers.

    P.S.We are sure the late Father T Fulham told you much info about the CMRI.It is amazing those who have come to the Faith from other Protestant/Orthodox churches to soon see there is something wrong with it's "priests"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind words.

      Yes, Fr. Fulham told us a great deal, not only about Pivvy but also about the Tradistanis, whom he knew well — one in particular. He also had some interesting insights about episcopal lineages.

      We consider ourselves fortunate to have enjoyed a lengthy correspondence with him before his untimely passing.

      Delete
    2. His "insight" on the Thuc line was highly inconsistent.
      All 4 bishops (Thuc Mendez Lefevbre & Duarte-Costa) ordained & consecrated outside the official channels of the Holy See due to emergency situations.
      They're all identical in lawfullness & validity contrary to what Bp.Kelly & Bp.Fullham state.

      Delete
    3. A consecration without an Apostolic Mandate is unlawful.

      Delete
    4. I know the spell check screwed up what I was typing and I didn't look before Publishing.

      Delete
  19. The Reader February 28, 2018 at 10:06 PM

    Which one in particular?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lent is a time of great graces.

      Let us just pray, folks.

      Delete
    2. What did Terence relate concerning Bob?
      What’s going on with the Highlanders?

      Delete
    3. Too many facts and insights to include in the small space we have on the comments page. The info needs a series of posts. Most of the content came from the Winona days: our school chums know us best, don't they?

      As for the Highlanders, our contacts tell us they are not too happy about Jelly's rapprochement with Big Don. We've even received a few emails from correspondents claiming to be Highlanders. From the tenor of one, it seems some have expressed their chagrin publicly.

      Delete
    4. I’m not so sure Robert Neville has very much a working relationship with anyone...
      I think he has loose contacts with various ministers but not any serious bond
      Interested to know what public expression(s) has/have been made to reveal dismay
      I’m of the opinion the Highland group is virtually independent
      I do believe members of the chapel seek fellowship with other like minded people but for the most part are independent
      Highland is a curious group

      Delete
    5. IOHO, you are 100% on the money! We can't affirm this now, but based on past interactions with some of the members, the one group they want to steer clear of is the SW Ohio-B'ville cabal, in particular Big Don.

      We've always wondered what the general reaction was when Big Don & Junior celebrated McKenna's funeral Mass there or when the Beanpole subbed for Jelly one time. That can't have gone down well.

      Delete