Saturday, February 3, 2018

THROWING CAUTION TO THE WINDS

When we want money we want all. Draxe's Bibliotheca scholastica instructissima 

At long last! The decades of masquerading have ended.

It seems Dannie's given up pretending to be a traditional, pre-Bugnini Catholic "pastor." Faking it must no longer be a viable business model. In the sere autumn of his failed career as a religious entrepreneur, he's decided — ecclesiastical law be damned! —to do whatever it takes to herd the straying Gerties into the shabby cult center:  Every "gun" shearer knows you can't fleece sheep if they aren't in the catching pen first.

Do you remember a few weeks back when the cult resorted to the verbal subterfuge of inviting post-burial diners to "consider themselves dispensed from the Friday abstinence"?  (Click here.) Well, the cult kingpin is now outright declaring a dispensation on his own, as if he were a bona-fide Ordinary.

Don't believe us?

Then read the alarming proclamation in the $GG bulletin flyer (p. 4), aimed at promoting attendance at the Candlemas "Winter Soup Supper" on Friday, February 2:
"Abstinence is dispensed for those who attend the Mass."
Not only is the decree an audaciously lawless move, it's also a revolutionary manifesto in miniature. No more weasel wording. From now on, it'll be bald declarations from "One-Hand Dan" himself! A cultling won't have to wrestle with her or his conscience by considering anything. Like a reeking, triple-decker cheeseburger tossed into a flyblown dumpster, the illicit "dispensation" is there for the grabbing, if you're reckless enough to take it. The only catch is you'll have to turn out for a Big Show to be dispensed.

PL reckons the handful of Gerties in attendance last night left their thin gruel and watery soups in the fridge, schlepping instead greasily viscous buckets of stew clogged with ragged chunks of squirrel, pig's trotters, raccoon, downer cow, or unidentifiable road kill. So epoch-making is this new discipline that we Readers created a brand-new signature slogan for the SW Ohio cult:
$GG: A meat-eater's Friday-night delight, where "One-Hand" dispenses if you foot the expenses.
Why, you might ask, did the cult masters adopt so rash a policy, one guaranteed to alienate many dyed-in-the-wool traditional Catholics? To hear some orthodox trads talk, Dannie might have to surrender his "sede card." But we think we've got the answer for all this risky business: The Gerties' financially ruinous boycott of $GG activities.

Throughout 2017, Dannie often rued the low participation in and flagging enthusiasm for cult social life. In last week's "Corner," he continued his private pity party with a string of soul-bearing ruminations. After nostalgically recalling the "palmy years of the 80s,"— where "the darkened church was well filled!" — he suddenly whimpered, "Anybody remember?" (Was that a sniffle we detected?)

Then, perhaps after swallowing a "reality-pill," the Pastor of Disaster unexpectedly manned up: "Well, those days are done." (You betcha they are: Gertie gummers are dying off, while the rams and ewes are wandering away, either physically or emotionally.) The self-feeding, flock-scattering shepherd who formerly ruled with a high hand tried to console himself with the observation that on "some Sundays the Mass is well filled." But we'd say he's tormented by the subconscious knowledge that one day in the near future on no Sunday will the Mass be "well filled."

By his own admission, the Gerties didn't even bother to reply to his survey about "a good daily Mass time" (for Lent, we presume). His Despondency "only heard from one or two souls." Hilariously, a certain sassy spirit who made the effort to suggest a time impertinently informed Dannie "he wouldn't be attending." Talk about indifference! And with cheeky apathy like that comes reduced giving — of time, of moral support, and of money.

In spite of the brave face he put on, His Anxiety's gotten the message, loud and clear. That's why he had to try something — anything — to increase traffic in the forsaken cult center, notwithstanding the danger of alienating pious Catholics. When he learned "300 guests" have already signed up for Junior's "consecration," he must have been crushed. Compensatory narcissist that he is, Dan's aware the center of Tradistan is relentlessly shifting toward the Kid. As soon as it dawns on him that illicit dispensations from the Friday abstinence won't fill the pews with "sheeple," it's frightening to imagine what he'll do thereafter to keep basking in the self-enhancement only cash confers.*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Speaking of the Boy-"Bishop"-Elect, this may be the best place to follow up on Big Don's December 2017 promise to "give further information about [the Kid's "consecration"] in the January newsletter." As you probably know, the January newsletter has been out, yet it contained no further information about the February 22 three-ring circus. All we saw was a notice about a subdiaconal ordination scheduled for two days after the extravaganza. (Joey's maiden conferral of orders?)

Why the silence? What's to hide? The Donster had the space to write something in the newsletter. Did PL's interest in the occasion and its players spook him? Are undoubtedly valid co-consecrators backing out because of pressure from their flocks or their bosses? Did "One Hand" ask him to hold off on any announcement in order to save face? (The Wee One hasn't said a thing about a February Mexican adventure yet: Could be he's buying time.) Come to think about it, there may have been internal arguments with the élite about the arrangements and participants. Maybe Don's been told to keep his piehole shut until everything's settled.

We'll never know the reason for all the coyness. Of this we can be sure, however: "The Lowly Worm" didn't live up to his word — or maybe he simply couldn't remember.

* It amazes PL that the sedes have missed the transactional opportunity to invent their own procedures for issuing decrees of nullity of marriage. That ploy would be a real moneymaker as well as a crowd pleaser — sure to pack 'em in every day of the week. There could even be a tie-in with the cult's Young Adult Get-Together. Dannie might even want to rebrand it as the "Yearning for Annulment Gang." Honestly, we don't see how His Necessity can afford to pass up the chance for profitable commodification on $GGResources by hawking T-shirts (long-sleeved, of course) and polycarbonate beer mugs tempting traddies to


BAG YOUR
NEXT SPOUSE
@ WEE DAN'S YAG.


91 comments:

  1. Regarding your footnote:
    Does SSPX look into marriage cases in order to make decisions and issue decrees or findings on validity or nullity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The R & R staffers haven't heard anything from their SSPX priest. Maybe someone out in cyberspace has more info.

      Delete
  2. No, that's *your* religion that is making a fortune off of putting asunder what God hath joined together.

    Sedevacantists believe in and practice the words of Our Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We wouldn't put anything past the sede cults. Case in point:

      We have a 2004 letter sent to a cult leader praying that he would

      "realize the great harm [he] did in granting [the writer's sibling]...'permission' to leave [Mr. X] in secret, the result of which is the divorce that is pending. When I called you at the time to beg you to listen to reason and prevent the separation until you could counsel both parties, you yelled at me and told me to mind my own business. I knew then that [my sibling] had the spirit of divorce in her heart and would never return to [her husband]...based on [my sibling's] exaggerations and bare-faced lies, you gave her the 'get out of jail free' card she wanted and now you must bear responsibility for the divorce and its consequences."

      There's much more in the letter, and the writer's back story, confirmed by a sede "bishop," is enraging.

      If this can happen in a supposedly sedevacantist chapel, are annulments really that hard to envision in a sede cult?

      Sedevacantists have sworn to us that sedes do not allow meat to pass their lips on a Friday of abstinence, yet our post documents a cult master illicitly granting a dispensation to his cultlings if they attend a Big Show.

      In Sedelandia, anything goes as long as the kingpins say so. If that's "your" religion, you can have it.

      Delete
    2. The Reader February 4, 2018 at 7:26 AM

      The problem is that with SOME clerics anything goes in Sede-land, just like in SSPX-land, just like in FSSP-land.

      However in all those lands there are also clerics who stick to the perceived rules of their lands the best they can.

      Not easy as there is no consensus in any of those lands.

      Delete
  3. Dolan's Candlemas newsletter names all 10 missions served by SGG in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, Illinois, & Texas. What happened to McKenna's mission in Rochester Minnesota? Dolan use to write about it all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very perceptive. We, too, have wondered about the radio silence over the "revived Ss Processus and Martinian Mission in Minnesota," as Dannie used to write. Back in 2014, it was all the talk and then went off the radar. We heard a few stories in 2016, and once they're verified, we'll report.

      Delete
  4. Found in material I am reading on epikeia proving that jurisdiction is never given by it.

    From me: Epikeia = flexibility that in my own life is proven destructive. I can live with it less and less. But certainly could at an earlier point so I understand how distracted and relatively 'clueless' people lack the power to help themselves to something better... IF it exists! That's the mysterious rainbow ahead of us and myself in moving to the mainland!

    + Father Lawrence Joseph Riley in his book, The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, Copyright 1948: [quotes used in an article on the subject of jurisdiction, from jmjsite:

    + "In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded.” Page 344.

    + “In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that epikeia is never licit.” Page 347.

    “Epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction.” Pages 231-232.

    “At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.” Page 387.

    Fr Riley continues mentioning St. Thomas to underscore his point:

    "Writing in Apollinaris, D'Angelo points out that St. Thomas considers epikeia to be a merely moral element, and that modern writers believe it to have reference only to moral, and not to juridic matters… Van Hove contends that, since epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, it has value only in the internal forum… Hilling seems almost unwilling to give any standing to
    epikeia at all. Believing that it practically amounts to self dispensation, which is in
    contradiction to law as a binding norm, he concludes at the most that it may be recognized in the internal forum.” Pages 232-233.

    “But the point here is that, in spite of the existence and necessity of this objective element,the effects of epikeia are confined to the internal forum. The lack of immutability and lack of guilt for transgressing the letter of the law have standing only in that forum.” Page 235.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sedes have ignored all the cautions that epieikeia is confined to the internal forum and probably has no reference to juridic matters. It's their very own bogus "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

      Delete
    2. Hey, Reader

      Maybe the sedes are thinking about (or trying to claim) supplied jurisdiction, but got their terminology wrong.

      Or maybe their ability to understand anything about the faith has been warped by sinfulness or immorality?

      Delete
  5. I see how, at the very end, you refer to "sedes" as a whole in blanket derision. So, does that mean that you, "The Reader", believes that Francis (Borgoglio) is the true Catholic Bishop of Rome & Christ's Vicar on earth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it doesn't.

      Sedes have no monopoly on Catholic truth. Like all people, some are good, some mediocre, and others bad. You have to discriminate. Moreover, there are different "schools" of SVism, which differ widely in intellectual rigor and plausibility, depending on their proponents.

      The sedes on staff here are rational human beings who understand SVism is a mere hypothesis that takes many forms, several of which are worthy of derision.

      Delete
    2. You didn't answer my question directly. Do YOU believe that Francis is a true Pope & Vicar of Christ on earth, today? A YES, or NO, is what I am looking for from your own belief.

      Delete
    3. But we did answer your 2:40 PM question directly. You asked (emphasis ours), "...does that mean that you, "The Reader", believes that Francis (Borgoglio) is the true Catholic Bishop of Rome & Christ's Vicar on earth?" and we answered "No, it doesn't." You can't be any more direct than that: a clear NO.

      Now, as for your 3:05 question, which doesn't ask us to interpret our comment based on your inference, it depends upon which Reader answers it. We have R&R readers, conservative N.O. Readers, sede Readers of various stripes etc.

      Delete
    4. I am asking now, whether the composer of this week's blog believes whether Francis (Bergoglio) is the true Bishop of Rome & Vicar of Christ, today. Yes, or No?

      Delete
    5. And we're saying now, there is no one single composer of this blog. It is a team effort. The team has members who differ in their interpretation of the current crisis in accordance with their ecclesiology. Suffice it to say we all believe something is wrong with the current Vatican establishment. After all, we're Aliquid Pravists.

      Delete
    6. I am asking YOU, then, who just responded to me here at 6:25PM.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, pal, but the Reader of 2/4 6:25 PM went off duty just after posting the reply.

      Delete
    8. I can wait for him to come back on duty and answer.

      Delete
    9. Suit yourself, but we don't take messages here.

      Delete
    10. Anon.’s Feb. 24, 2:40 PM, 3:05 PM, 4:53 PM, 6:25 PM (and Feb. 5, 6:51 AM and 6:56 AM):

      Why the morbid curiosity in whether one thinks that Bergoglio is pope or not (or whether one is a “sede” or not)? And why use the Reader’s 7:44 AM comment (about “sedes” and “epieikeia”) as a “justification” for going on an” interrogation binge about that? (It seems that you – or someone like you – has brought up this subject umpteen times before; and the rest of us are tired of hearing about it.) Is being a “sede” the criterion for being >Catholic? Is it the criterion for getting to heaven?

      We suggest that you limit your comments to the subject matter of PL’s article, not to your own “personal agenda.” Otherwise, if you want to argue your “agenda,” then we suggest that you go to a blog like cathinfo.com (or set up your own, so that you can talk to yourself all day). To repeat, the rest of us are tired of wasting our time reading your drivel.

      Delete
    11. Don't act like just because I am Anonymous you can ascribe to me what you have become annoyed with by other people. I haven't post for some time.

      It's not a morbid curiosity. It's a simply question for one person. Let him speak here for himself.

      Delete
    12. Since it seems to be important enough to you to know who people are rather than to be content with the information they are providing, why don't you, Anonymous 5:35, set the example by giving us your full name.

      Delete
    13. I am not asking for a name. My information is, Francis is not the pope. Now I am asking my question again to the "The Reader" of 6:25 PM.

      Delete
    14. Anon. 5:35, I didn’t say that it definitely was you that brought this up every time; I said that “it seems that you – or someone like you” brought it up. The pertinent part of my comment was that asking that same question “umpteen times” was irksome, not whether it was always you who brought it up. You seem to have betrayed yourself with your claim that it was not you “the other times” (and that you “haven’t posted for some time”). Actually, I think you have posted – frequently and recently. In other words, I think you’re lying.

      But whether you do or don’t post often doesn’t matter. What matters is that such persistent questioning was irksome, immaterial – and, because you asked it six times, it does amount to morbid curiosity. Whether someone is a “sede” or not – and whether he or she wants to divulge that information or not -- is none of your business. Anon. 6:51 was right: you want information; but at the same time, you remain anonymous. Tell you what, Anon. 5:35: mind your own business, and we’ll mind ours.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous February 5, 2018 at 5:35 PM

      What if he or she thinks they already answered enough or your question is too personal? Not every question deserves a response.

      Delete
    16. Watcher, if a question is given to someone who is anonymous, and the question itself does not undo that anonymity, then the question is not a personal question (unless he doesn't want it revealed to the internal PL). Now, how is it personal when he already said PL is comprised of both?

      Delete
    17. Anon. !2:42 (and other assorted times):

      We didn’t say it was “personal” (or that it had anything to do with anonymity); it simply has to do with not wanting to answer your impertinent question. And no matter how many times you ask it, it will not be answered. Is that plain enough for you?

      Delete
    18. Why don't you let the man whom I asked answer for himself? And give his reason for himself? I don't accept your answer as his, unless you tell me he explicitly approves. I know the man I am asking is the prime author of this particular blog, and I want his direct answer, which is quite pertinent to the subjects mentioned in this blog.

      Delete
    19. Anon 7:16, this is Anon 6:51 again. I'm a sede as much as you are, but I don't care if PL is a Jack Mormon. Inconvenient truths about some of our clergy don't become any less true because of who provides the info. If you disagree with something being said, you should be intelligent enough to argue on substance rather than dismissing the message on account of the messenger.

      Delete
    20. Anon. 6 Feb. 7:16 PM:

      Whether the current occupant of the See of Peter is the Sovereign Roman Pontiff or not has never been the chief subject of this blog. At most, it is a tangential topic. Pistrina Liturgica is dedicated (1) to shattering the pernicious myth that the cult masters of Tradistan are genuine Roman Catholic clergy and (2) to discouraging traditional Catholics from supporting the hypocritical, mammon-addicted, soul-destroying cults.

      The ecclesial opinions of the several Readers are legion and private. No one here has the desire to proselytize — on the basis of a mere hypothesis — his or her Catholic brethren, who may in good conscience hold another equally pious explanation for the ongoing crisis in the Church. We are in fellowship with any morally centered professed Catholic, be he or she sede, R & R, or N.O., who simply acknowledges something is wrong with Rome. Any individual position on the state of the papacy is better left unspoken on these pages, inasmuch as the Church herself has not yet ruled definitively. Aliquid pravi is as far as we will venture as a body.

      Delete
    21. When one asks a question, and the responses are evasions, the asking multiple times is not what is annoying...it is the evasions which caused it. The Reader6:25 couldn't bring himself to simply say it was an impertinent question, but then again, I can point to SO MANY impertinent question of PL that WERE answered! so, why the stiffness on this one all of a sudden? Because it's ACTUALLY the crux of everything and PL knows it.

      What is ironic about this is that syllogisms can have multiple premises, and what may seem like an impertinent question is really not so when proceeding to further premises. But....PL, for as much as they make Sedes look like dogmatic jerks, are actually dogmatic themselves by insisting that EVERY POSITION IS FINE by not being open to proof that one position is true. PL is dogmatically insisting we all should remain INTELLECTUALLY ALOOF (as opposed to actual DOUBT) and condemn those against it. There is no such thing in Catholic tradition as insisting to wait for Rome to decide....this was explicitly condemned in "Liberalism is a Sin".



      Delete
    22. But there is such a Catholic tradition...in the ancient maxim Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

      Delete
    23. Sounds like The Reader 6:25 has come back! but you have it wrong.

      Yes, your principle is correct - WHEN and IF Rome speaks it is final. But this has nothing to do with "Liberalism is a Sin" which was reviewed and praised by Rome....and within it said that those who argue that we should wait and ONLY accept a possible decision by Rome on a matter, and no other reasoning beforehand, are guilty of a "brutal and satanic Jansenism". Go look it up.

      Delete
    24. Reader, this is Anon. 6:51 again. You have to be consistent if you're going to invoke that principle. You admit there's an ongoing crisis precisely because, rightfully, you don't like what Rome has been saying these last 60 years.

      Delete
    25. Enlighten us. Since when has Felix Sarda y Salvany's treatise been considered de fide teaching of the Catholic Church (if that's what you're referring to)?

      Delete
    26. Since when do we only have to abide by "de fide" teaching? That is not traditional. It is a mortal sin to abide by lesser than "de fide" teaching, which the catechisms include. Yes, mortal sin, for not accepting non-de-fide teaching! That is traditional.

      Delete
    27. Anon. Feb. 7 6:09

      Yes, that's why we're aliquid pravists.

      Delete
    28. No, that is why aliquid privists are flatly opposed to a decision of an official Roman office decision!

      Delete
    29. Anon. Feb. 7, 7:49

      What have you been smoking?

      Delete
    30. Reader Feb. 7 7:39

      Is aliquid pravist Latin for "Catholic doctrine on papal perogatives is negotiable"?

      Delete
    31. No. It means something wrong.

      Delete
    32. If not that the "popes" of late are not real popes, then what do you propose is wrong? I'm at a loss for an alternative explanation that still keeps Catholic doctrine intact.

      Delete
    33. The list of what's wrong is a long one. Cardinal Marx's recent proposal, the clerical abuse scandals, the theology of Küng, Schillebeeckx, & Rahner, Amoris Lætitia, clown and turkey Masses, dancing nuns, extraordinary ministers, communion in the hand, altar girls, novel teachings on religious liberty, the theological poverty of the vernacular liturgy, the disappearance of Latin as the Roman rite's medium of discourse, to name only a few.

      Now, how a Catholic confronts (or reconciles) the many abuses with the teaching about the papacy is a matter for his or her conscience, given the current silence of the Church. Some may choose to recognize and resist. Others may tolerate the situation with deep sadness, finding consoling parallels in history for the horrors from which they recoil. Still others may conclude that the See of Peter is vacant or that the incumbent possesses but the material papacy.

      To certain individuals, but not to PL, these responses are at odds with each other. For us, they amplify the great mystery of the ongoing ecclesial crisis. Without the Church to guide us, we dare not say which of these responses is the best. They may all, in fact, be suboptimal. Nevertheless, they are a manifestation of the sensus catholicus, the spontaneous judgment of loyal and faithful Catholics that binds us together as co-religionists, irrespective of hypotheses or the preferences of individual taste.

      Delete
    34. @Anonymous 6:20 AM:
      It's basically "Fun with Latin" by Milton Bradley...8 years old and up.

      Delete
    35. Sorry, buster, but you're way off.

      Someone better schooled than you might be thinking of Latin Can Be Fun (Facitiae Latinae) by Georg Capellanus, translated by Peter Needham (1975).

      Delete
    36. I'm not way off....because I entirely made it up!

      Delete
    37. Fun...fun...fun...even if you are eight years old! Make up novel terms for silly ideas; impress your friends & family (or, at least try to).

      Delete
    38. No more novel a term than "sedevacantism."

      Delete
    39. Novel isn't the problem....it's the "silly" that matters!

      Delete
    40. The Reader February 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM

      Some say we have a Pope Francis and we must obey him.
      Some say we have a Pope Francis and we must disobey him.
      Some say we have no pope and we must reject Francis.

      How can the responses be considered anything but at odds?

      Delete
    41. We agree. Without the Church's decision, these hypotheses are silly.

      Delete
    42. That is precisely opposed to the decision of the Holy Office which had a booklet submitted to it for condemnation, and after scrutinizing it declared that it was to be entirely praiseworthy and followed by Catholics. In that book, it says that we have a DUTY to judge on our own, and that those who say we must wait for the Church to decide are holding a position that is - "a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism". Your holding a know-nothing position of perpetual doubt and insisting everyone should, is just that, satanic. I have authority for this, and you violate it.

      Delete
    43. Nonsense. We did judge the Vatican establishment when we affirmed something is wrong, so we fulfilled our Catholic duty.

      Whether we assent to the proposition that the See of Peter is vacant is something that requires a pronouncement from the magisterium.

      Delete
    44. Anon 8 Feb. 9:22

      Because the competing opinions, although superficially diverse in expression, point to an underlying agreement among Catholics on the state of the Church.

      Delete
    45. I am new to all of this “sedevacantism”. Can somebody tell me who came up with the theory of ”sedevacatism” being in effect when there is a body sitting in the chair of Peter?? I don’t like who is sitting in the chair, but he is there nevertheless.

      Delete
    46. Just a wild guess, Anon 2:19PM, but I imagine it's those who haven't meditated on 2 Thess. 2, 3-11 enough.

      Delete
    47. At best, Reader 8:14am, you fulfilled "a" duty. Duties to pursue truth & goodness are on-going duties. If it is your personal belief that you personally are not competent to pursue a particular judgment, then that is your business that stops only you.

      The judgment that the Holy See is vacant is an ecclesiastial/legal judgment. The judgment that a man is not a pope because of manifest heresy is a moral judgment about his person, not about the See. The moral judgment necessarily comes before the legal. The quotes that say a pope ceases to be pope and must be declared so, allows the electors to proceed to another election. That declaration is about a man that the clergy already know is not a pope, otherwise the declaration would be judging a pope, but that is condemned to do. Nobody can judge a pope. The quotes show that the clergy make the moral judgment before they schedule the meeting to declare it. The declaration is there for all those who did not or could not make that moral judgment on their own.

      Now, if you cannot personally fathom making the judgment based on faith and reason that Francis is a false pope, you have the option of stating that you are not spiritual and mentally competent to ever do so. If that is your personal problem, don't try to make it a position. However, if you think you already have the use of reason and have the faith, there is an on-going duty to listen to new facts and reasonings so that some day you will have a solid reason to affirm or deny a position. (Even if you doubt, there is the Catholic principle "a doubtful pope is no pope"). It is not a legitimate position to choose doubt for its own sake, and then to proceed to get other people on board with that. The Catholic books say that with faith and reason we can make a moral judgment before the Church makes a legal judgment, and it is satanic to say we must all wait for a legal judgment.

      Delete
    48. Fr.Arriaga Mexico early 70's.

      Delete
    49. Anonymous February 9, 2018 at 6:35 PM

      These "clergy" do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore have no standing. Their judgments are private ones that do not bind anyone else.

      Delete
    50. The status of those particular "clergy" is beside Anon. 6:35's point.

      Delete
    51. The Reader February 9, 2018 at 8:14 AM

      Assenting to the proposition that the See of Peter is vacant is not something that requires a pronouncement from the magisterium. Otherwise, absent such pronouncement all those people who you say are sede friends and collaborators of PL are in grave error and schism.

      An authoritative DECLARATION can't be made by anyone but the Church, nor can assent be demanded by anyone other than the Church.

      But assenting to a proposition does not require a declaration by authority. In fact, any such declaration would change such a proposition into a declaration.

      Delete
    52. Anonymous February 9, 2018 at 6:35 PM

      That makes sense.

      From,
      A different Anon

      Delete
    53. Anon 8:14 AM

      Of course one may assent to any proposition, regardless of its source and regardless of whether it is correct. In this matter, we demand the certitude that only the Church provides. Outside that, the sede position is a mere hypothesis, which some of us affirm and others do not.

      Delete
    54. Fr.Arriaga was ordained during the WW1 era.

      Delete
  6. Attribution: "Letter to Bishop Giles" at jmjsite proving that there is no jurisdiction for bishops directly from Christ as the 'Supreme Pontiff." Bp. Giles and another bishop believed this and preached it.

    Footnotes are at the end of the response.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I attended Candlemas at an
    SSPX-RESISTANCE chapel Friday.
    There were only 15 people there at the most.
    Normally I attend a Sedevacantist chapel on Sunday.(not Bp.Dolan nor Bp.Sanborn)
    Most weekday mass centers have very low attendance,including Novus Ordo anti-church temples.
    Secondly,it's a fact the average Traditional Chapel is seeing low attendance due to younger secular generations not replacing the elderly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another possible explanation for the low turnout at the SSPX-RESISTANCE chapel may be the fact that they did not grant a dispensation from the Friday abstinence as Dannie did.

      Delete
    2. The Sede & SSPX-Resistance chapels I attend are in Louisville,KY & not affiliated with Bp.Dolan NOR Bp.Sanborn.

      Delete
    3. More than likely the SSPX chapel doesn't hand out illicit dispensations from the Friday abstinence. They must follow the rules, unlike the cults.

      Since we don't know who's running your sede chapel, we refrain from guessing what they do. If your "priest" or "bishop" was once associated with the cult masters, you'd better keep a close watch.

      Delete
    4. Our sede chapel is fine and our clerics are very respectful.
      Thank you for the kind concern.(not being sarcastic)

      Delete
  8. Anon 5:47PM - it's not just because the younger generations are not replacing the elderly. Distance has a lot to do with it. Back in the day most people could walk to church or if they did have to drive (as we did, as we lived way out in the country) the drive was fairly short - 15 miles for us. Now I must drive 26 miles & even that's not bad considering some people must travel greater distances. That can be quite a trek if you have children. I only go on Sundays & Holy Days of Obligation & consider myself fortunate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet before the 2009 $GG $CHOOL $CANDAL people young and old would drive many miles to attend cult activities.

      Distance is indeed a factor, but something more is going on to depress participation.

      Delete
  9. One bishop can consecrate another and give him the power of orders but not the power of jurisdiction.

    The power of jurisdiction is only received from a true pope. This is a very close paraphrase of a section of material from the series, Which Bishop Should I follow, at jmjsite.

    The comment came during the reading of a section of Dom Gueranger's, The Liturgical Year, V.8.

    Pope Pius XII died on 28 October 1958. Since then, no valid pope has been available to grant jurisdiction to any bishop. They are it seems to me and others all free-ranging it.

    All the men calling themselves bishops lack jurisdiction.

    This continues to concern me and others, notably jmjsite, and Eric Hoyle who focuses upon forgiveness of sins in confession.

    I am going to go a little farther than I have presently, when actually beginning to decide where to move, in connection with the 'Siri people' of www.papalrestoration.org, www.shepherdandsailor.com concerning the successor who evidently was set in place before Siri died, using the correct protocol with people alive at that time.

    He has a name, which I do not recall now, but when I did know it, I looked him up on the internet, and he is present there. Not his own activities, but mention of him with more information including I recall location. How up to date this was I also don't really clearly remember.

    I also recall that - during the time I was corresponding with papalrestoration, an announcement either was made, or an event had recently taken place, somewhere in the mid-Atlantic area, states in that area. A mass. Mid-Atlantic (?) Forget the term having been here so long (!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. October 9th 1958, death of Pope Pius XII; correction.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Today as we fight this battle we shouldn't be confused by each other.

    Pope Pius XII in his last encyclical issued exactly 30 days before he died comes down hard and uses strong language regarding anomalies already occurring in 1958 'for the good of souls.'

    We are like facets of an infinitely beautiful gem that needs all its facets or another analogy each with a song to sing. Pistrina is one irreplaceable facet, n.o.w. is another, TRR is another, and each individual in each of those and anyone we see anywhere is also a song.

    Bp. Dolan once in a talk said that he uses the prayer, 'be not my judge but my savior.' He is a lover of devotions and uses them.

    Everything he is doing also has the tinge of trying to keep and to give the beauty and efficacy of what he knew from his parents and background, ancestors, from the day he was born.

    By a born protestant it is all seen as unspeakably fortunate. No protestant child has Our Lady or devotions.

    Bp. Dolan gave so much of himself answering every letter, all my questions no matter how busy he was and more. The newsletter he produces will keep coming as long as he produces them; cancelling to help save postage would send the wrong message.

    Nothing to give any Catholic like he does and others do; it all goes the other way. No, maybe one thing, a song begun in a 'relaxed' Catholic setting, the Episcopal Church.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The ReaderFebruary 7, 2018 at 5:40 PM
    But there is such a Catholic tradition...in the ancient maxim Roma locuta est, causa finita est

    ...So if Rome speaks today do you agree the cause is ended?
    If Francis declares SSPX schismatic is the cause ended?
    Francis speaks that he is the Pope; so is sedevacantism schismatic per se?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.

      Delete
    2. "Cannot speak" OR "does not want to admit"? I think you meant the latter, Reader.

      Delete
    3. No, we didn't. In doubt, there is no assent but rather a suspension of judgment.

      Delete
  13. I so hope that Stephen Heiner is reading all of this!!! Good job, Readers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. But if he is, it's not sinking in. Otherwise, he'd sever every association with the Tradistani cults.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous February 9, 2018 at 2:19 PM

    That is way too simplistic. It is not a case of liking or disliking the person.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Reader February 9, 2018 at 8:24 AM
    Anon 8 Feb. 9:22

    They are not superficially diverse in expression, and certainly not merely superficially diverse in mode of conduct, or conclusions about the hierarchy.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you considered visiting an eye doctor?

      Delete
  16. Father Jenkins, Society of St. Pius V, comments on the SGG Friday dispensation (and other matters). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WQd7wQ4M0Y

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for the link.

    HERE it is so people can access it directly (min. 051-3:20).

    As Fr. Jenkins noted at the end about Dannie's dispensation, "The mentality there...it isn't right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr.Jenkins is dishonest about the Thuc line.
      He says we can't trust Bp.Des Lauriers or Bp.Carmona as witnesses to their own consecrations.
      (Bp.Zamorra ordained priests and was only
      co-consecrater to a few traditional consecrations)
      Both priests were ordained in the 1920's and Bp.Gerard Des Lauriers helped write the official document for the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Ottaviani intervention.
      Bp.Carmona helped teach in a seminary before V2 and studied under Fr.Arriaga.
      I am not involved nor care about the dispensation via Bp.Dolan because I am not involved with his chapel.
      I wish Fr.Jenkins would stop being dishonest as it only divides the already divided and fractured traditional Catholic world.

      Delete