Saturday, March 24, 2018


In a man's letters, his soul lies naked. Dr. Johnson


Earlier this month, Radio Cristiandad posted a monograph by Fr. Basilio Méramo, a former member of the SSPX, in which he extensively quoted from "Two Bishops in Every Garage" and thereby revived the question of Thc's "cordura" (= sanity, good sense). Based on that exposition, Fr. Méramo judged the exiled archbishop's consecrations to be "really, objectively, and positively doubtful" (dudosas real, objetiva y positivamente). The whole sordid history from Palmar de Troya through des Lauriers and Carmona, he concluded with exasperation, must have been but a great lunacy or a tale told by madmen ("Qué es todo esto sino una gran locura, o un cuento de locos")

PL has no intention, today or any day, of weighing in on either side of the issue of Thc's mental competence. In our minds, we put that question to bed back on April 9, 2016, when we argued in favor of the sedes' securing multiple lineages as a way to eliminate doubts about their validity (click here). That approach is certainly a far better alternative than waiting for the other shoe to drop should alarming new facts come to light. Therefore, to put it bluntly, for all we care, Thc could've been crazier than an outhouse fly.*


With the exception of the SSPV and a few others, most sedes would agree, even if begrudgingly, that the uprooted archbishop was lucid when he performed the "consecrations" that established many of Sedelandia's sublineages. In which case, it would not be out of line for PL to assume these partisans would likewise assert that Thc's wits were never impaired.

For these sedes, it would be an exceedingly dangerous policy to allow that Thc drifted in and out of lucidity over the course of his exile from his native Vietnam. If they did, couldn't an adversary like PL allege the archbishop may have been suffering from one of his loony episodes when he conferred orders on Carmona and Zamora but not when he "consecrated" des Lauriers? Far more convenient is it to explain away — say, by citing "distractions" or "deception"** — what "Peregrinus" aptly termed "The Palmar Fiasco." If you took that escape route, you'd altogether avoid impugning Thc's mental stability, wouldn't you?

Hence we'll take a risk today and presume the sedes of the SW Ohio/B'ville cult would also uphold (1) Thc's judgments about whom to "consecrate" and (2) his motives for agreeing to perform a "consecration." In other words, we think they'd say the archbishop knew what he was doing. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the cultists might in addition argue his offer of consecration to any individual resulted from prudent deliberation, informed by his studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, from which he earned three doctorates (philosophy, theology, canon law).

All this speculation brings us to the problem of Big Don's Liénart liability, over which so many cult freaks wet their beds every time it appears on PL. To be entirely forthcoming, the Readers don't consider the disadvantage of Liénart-conferred orders to be as grave a threat to validity as is Dubious Dan's one-handed sacerdotal "ordination."  Nevertheless, we do believe the Lowly Worm should have gotten himself fixed before Junior's recent Sacrilege in the Swamp — for safety's sake. (The Kid should be forever grateful to Geert Stuyver for saving his bacon.)


For the present, though, we don't propose to revisit our moderate discomfort over the Liénart problem. Instead, we'd like to share Archbishop Thc's view of the matter. His Excellency "speaks" to us in a handwritten letter to Lefebvre, sent after he had heard of the SSPX founder's ill health. (The letter is available on the Today's Catholic World [TCW] blog here.)

Although we're not forensic analysts, nevertheless, summoning our paleography skills, we compared the handwriting of the letter to that of the 1981 consecration certificate Thc issued (available here). After a close inspection, we satisfied ourselves that the same person wrote both documents. A note (here) posted by the TCW blog affirms its authenticity, so you don't have to take PL's word for it.

On the web site, you'll find a not-altogether-satisfactory translation appended to the image of the letter. Consequently, for ease of reference, below we supply an almost slavishly literal version for the portions of the text that interest us today. (We don't want you to think we're loading the dice with too free a rendering.) Since the crabbed handwriting becomes at times difficult to decipher, we'll first provide a transcription of the French original (as we read it — we'll gladly consider other readings, since we've been contracted to prepare an annotated transcription of the entire letter):
❡2 Vous avez été consacré Evêque par le Cardinal Liénard [sic, as we read the written name]; or ce Cardinal n'avait jamais crû [sic] à notre Religion, — donc votre consécration par lui a été [our best guess] nulle.
❡3 Je suis prêt à vous consacré [sic] évêque ou bien trouver un évêque qui se charge de vous consacrer secrètement. 
(❡ 2) You were consecrated Bishop by Cardinal Liénart; but this Cardinal had never believed [reading cru for crû] in our Religion, — therefore your consecration by him was null. 
(❡ 3) I am ready to consecrate [reading consacrer for consacré] you bishop or else find a bishop who may take it upon himself [reading a non-assertive relative clause] to consecrate you secretly.
Two features strike us immediately about ❡2First, the unmistakable syllogistic frame, to wit, the telltale conjunctions or (but) linking a premise and donc (therefore) introducing a conclusion. Second, the assumptive tone (which continues in ❡3): Thc doesn't hedge his declaration in the slightest. Taken together, both features conclusively indicate the letter was written with the presumption (1) that Liénart's faithlessness was common knowledge among high-level churchmen and (2) that Lefebvre was as aware of his principal consecrator's radical defection as was Thc.

The purpose of Thc's missive, then, was not to inform Lefebvre of his troubled holy orders. Lefebvre already knew of the problem. Instead, Thc wrote in order to (1) counsel him in Christian candor to accept undoubtedly valid episcopal orders and (2) offer his own services to that end. It may be worth noting that later in the letter he suggests Lefebvre be ready to re-confer the priesthood on the clergy he had but lately ordained or find another bishop to do so.***  (Gee-whiz, sounds almost like what the Readers have been trying for years to get "One-Hand Dan" to do!****)


So, then, what does all this come down to? In our mind, it boils down to two mutually exclusive questions:

(a) Was Thc a malformed, crazy, old geezer sputtering nonsense (and hence unfit to consecrate anyone ever)?
(b) Did the "saintly" — as Dannie once called him — archbishop think there was something to the Liénart liability, which would move a prudent man to obtain conditional orders?

It's really a no brainer.

* Those of you who read Spanish might be interested in Fr. Méramo's take (and his takedown of shape-shifting Checkie and Big Don). For his article, click here.

** As we heard the Cheeseball once say in a 2011 interview (min. 19:25 and 19:34).

*** The TCW blog's English version does not translate the clause to which we refer, so you will have to consult the handwritten letter to verify. To assist you, here's our transcription of the French, the missing text in bold❡ 4 Quant aux ecclésiastiques que vous aviez fait prêtres naguère, vous seriez prêt à leur conférer la prêtise, ou trouver un Evêque [uncertainly reading upper-case e], par exemple moi-mêm[e] à les consacrer.

**** It may be unfair to judge from such a brief, hastily composed note, but Thc was definitely wrong in only recommending Lefebvre's re-consecration as a bishop. Lefebvre's 1929 priestly orders, which Liénart also conferred, constitute the real stumbling block.  If Lefebvre had been ordained to the priesthood by someone other than Liénart, the 1947 suspect episcopal orders conferred by principal consecrator Liénart would have been saved by one or both of the co-consecrators, Bishop Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel and Bishop Jean-Baptiste Victor Fauret.

However, if Lefebvre were not a valid priest at the time of his 1947 consecration, then the co-consecrators, their unchallenged validity notwithstanding, most likely did not confer orders.  As Noldin wrote in his Summa Theologiae Moralis, "It is more commonly affirmed, that when the priesthood has not yet been conferred, the episcopate cannot be validly conferred (communius affirmatur episcopatum, nondum collato sacerdotio, valide conferri non posse)."

To fully cure Lefebvre's Liénart liability, Thshould have offered to re-confer both sacerdotal and episcopal orders. But then perhaps the wise, old archbishop was just using a kind of shorthand and intended all along to fix his colleague completely.


  1. I've read of Saints from the old church (pre-1054) going from Diaconate to Bishop.

    1. 6:19

      Zalba wrote that "It is disputed...whether [the episcopate] contains in an eminent degree the priesthood, such that if anyone should pass over by a leap from the diaconate to the episcopate, his consecration should be valid albeit gravely illicit." The Dominican Royo Marín, like Noldin, took a harder line: "The validity of the episcopal consecration in one who may not be previously a priest is very doubtful."

      Whatever the ultimate answer is, our question now is this: Why not be safe? The salvation of souls is at stake.

    2. Does not Bp. Kelly have the same Lienart liability, or did Bp. Mendez secretly take care of that as well?

    3. We don't know if he got himself fixed before his consecration.

    4. It would seem, then, that you should bring it up with greater frequency. Seems a wee bit hypocritical to be hypercritical of the defect with Donny and Danny but not Clary as well.

    5. We have mentioned the Liénart problem on a number of occasions. There are two reasons why we haven't specifically addressed Kelly and the SSPV: (1) our primary focus is upon exposing the $GG & B'ville cults and (2) we don't know that much about the SSPV.

      Since Kelly was so suspicious about Thục-lineage orders, perhaps he harbored some doubts about the Liénart line and had Méndez secretly re-ordain him a priest before he received episcopal orders. And maybe subsequently he secretly fixed all the others in the SSPV. From what we've heard, such a scenario is not out of keeping with his character.

      But as we said, the SSPV has never been the object of our scrutiny so we've never tried to confirm or disconfirm such speculation. We've got plenty of material and topics by just concentrating on the Tradistani cults.

  2. TCW!

    'People must change their thinking in order to end the crisis.'

    Siri, Gregory XVII, and his successor, Gregory XVIII:

    Video: 'Joy and thanksgiving as the Pope plans for his succession'

    "This visit captures the joy of the Holy Father in mid-June 1988, days in which He is in contact with His secret cardinals to make arrangements for His Successor. The reporter greets him by saying, "Emminence, we are in paradise." To which the Holy Father points upwards and replies, "The real Paradise is close to Us." He dies less than 11 months afterwards, indicating that He meant himself, and was using the royal "We." It seems that His Holiness knew his mission on this earth was soon to be completed; that is, the passing on of the Papacy amidst the secrecy that is so necessary to the Church in Exile. Pope Gregory XVII pray for us!"

    All the above sites are associated and there is a toll free line answering calls in four languages. We have become accustomed to cowering before information expecting the worst.

    What amazes me is that this is even happening before I expect to die! Why should I be amazed? Heaven is working on it nonstop.

  3. Does your SSPX member agree with this week's post?

    1. 7:51

      Our posts mean many things to different people. Those in search of the truth are willing to confront disruptive points of view.

      But we don't ask such questions of one another. We simply vote on the topic, and then everyone goes to work.

      However, a disagreement wouldn't prevent an individual Reader's desiring to have an issue put on the table for debate, just as members of a deliberative body may make motions to discuss an item of business for which they know they will vote in the negative.

  4. Reader,

    Can you provide your thoughts on "the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”" from Moises Carmona.

    1. Licitness and validity are two different questions. Necessity does not make invalid orders valid.

  5. There is nothing about the post that should offend an SSPX adherent - Pistrina is simply pointing out that if Abp. Ngo were of sound mind then his assessment of Abp. Lefebvre's orders can't lightly be cast aside.

    It's like this: Abp. Ngo crazy = Bp. Sanborn's episcopal orders are doubtful. Abp. Ngo "saintly", of sound mine = Bp. Sanborn's priestly orders are doubtful ==> Bp. Sanborn's episcopal orders are doubtful. "Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "What do they teach in schools these days?"

    1. Not quite, since priestly orders are antecedent to epispocal according to the interpretation you seem to support (which I happen to think is probably erroneous).

      If Thuc was crazy, then Sanborn may or may not be a priest, and is almost certainly not a bishop. If Thuc was saintly, the Sanborn is almost certainly neither priest, nor Bishiop.

      Same woukd go for Kelly, too. Unless Mendez did provisional priestly ordination secretly.

      Could it be that is why Kelly stubbornly keeps up his condemnation of the "Thuc line"? Perhaps he wants to be the only Sultan in Sedlandistan.

    2. 9:35

      As we said, the question of antecedent priestly orders is a disputed one. Our point is that it's always better to be safe with regard to the sacraments.

      We don't understand what you mean by "If Thuc was crazy, then Sanborn may or may not be a priest(our emphasis)...." It was Lefebvre, not Thục, who ordained Big Don, and Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated by Liénart. So how would Thục's mental competence have any effect on Big Don's priestly orders? Is your statement predicated on your denial of the necessity of previous priestly orders for the valid reception of the episcopacy?

  6. Lienart = problem = Lefebvre's SSPX ordinations = problem = SSPX has a problem.

    1. All the groups have problems. Too bad there's no "Do Over" button.

    2. Exactly! A Continuing Anglican friend whose lines descend mainly through old Catholic sources once told me they were dominated by gypsies, tramps and thieves with the occasional saint. He was not just making reference to the obvious personages but was including his enlightenment, Renaissance, medieval and primitive predecessors. His constant prayer was “None is worthy” from the Greek Liturgy.

      The miracle is that the church somehow still exists.

  7. A citation to Today's Catholic World?! Talk about plumbing the depths of insanity. While we're reading stuff by loonies, why not bring up the "Pope Francis the Destroyer" blog? Their content is more orthodox than yours (and far more tasteful too):

    1. TCW is the site that published the facsimile of the autograph letter from Thục to Lefebvre, and the bloggers exercised some care in vouching for its authenticity. The value of the letter itself is unaffected by any supposed defect in the blog's other content.

      If a facsimile of the 1598 Clementine edition of the Vulgate appeared on a virulently Evangelical Protestant website, would its value to Catholics be lessened? A diamond, even if discovered under a heap of rotting garbage, is still a diamond.

      We will admit that the subjects of our posts — the malformed, money-mad, masquerading cult masters of Tradistan — are, in their own way, as disgusting or even more so than Bergie.

    2. It just goes to show that a perfectly sane Archbishop can conclude wrongly. What a surprise!

      Go away you lightweights.

    3. It seems you're the lightweight since you can't see that a perfectly sane archbishop may have concluded correctly based on what he knew.

      A simple mind must be a great affliction.

    4. 7:47 doesn't realize that with all his deep background knowledge of Liénart's history and of theology/canon law, a sane Thục could not have come to any other conclusion than to advise Lefebvre to accept conditional orders.

  8. Personally speaking I don't see any problem with Thuc Mendez or Lefevbre holy orders.

  9. If Bp. Thuc believed in the Lienhart nonsense, that proves nothing. He seems to have believed a lot of things people told him, including many things that most people would have been skeptical of.

    This doesn't introduce any doubt into the Holy Orders he conferred, though. Being gullible doesn't make one's sacraments invalid. The only way mental competence could be so deficient as to render a sacrament doubtful would be if the minister were stark, raving mad, and in that case he wouldn't be able to get through an ordination or consecration ceremony to begin with.

    1. 6:04 PM


      If we suppose that Thục were sane (and we're not necessarily opposed to that presumption, mind you), we must, as we clearly intimated in the post, grant that he was privy to most, if not all of the condemnatory details about Liénart contained in the Vatican dossiers. (Church bureaucrats gossip, too, and he was a consummate infighter from his days in Vietnam).

      Armed with his knowledge of theology/canon law and the dolorous gravity of Liénart's faithlessness, Thục knew for certain how perilous Lefebvre's situation was.

      He had no other choice than to offer conditional orders. The situation admitted of no other response. His decision flowed directly from sound principles. In his mind, there was no possibility of error.

      We agree.

  10. Despite many mistakes that Bp. Thuc made, especially in terms of poor choice of candidates for ordination, he gave up much in this world to preserve the true Catholic Faith, including possibly his own life. Despite being excommunicated by what you would call the hierarchy of the Church, he continued to pass on valid Holy Orders to ensure the continuation of the sacraments for the Church.

    His activities cost him everything he had in this world -- prestige, reputation, friends, everything. Quite probably even his own life. He was befriended by Vietnamese priests/monks, -- priests whom you would consider the "real thing" -- who used their shared ethnic background to gain his confidence. Under the cloak of friendship, like Judas, these co-religionists of yours eventually lured him into one of their vehicles on the pretense of giving him a ride to the airport, and instead abducted him to their monastery, where they held him captive against his will until his death. He once managed to get to a phone and call a friend to say he was being held there against his will and that these "monks" (your co-religionists) were trying to force him to sign a document retracting all his ordinations and consecrations, but he said he would NEVER sign any such statement. A few months after this he was dead. Did God reward his devotion with the Crown of Martyrdom? It looks very likely based on what we know, but we will probably not know for sure until the Last Day.

  11. I've just heard a heartbreaking story about a lady who has been friends with a Traditional Catholic priest for many years...she supported him from when he first entered priestly training. Last summer she started to attend the "pesthouse swamp" and was thus forced to stop to have any contact with him. Although the priest has received Holy Orders from a certain multiple-lineage bishop Sinburn bound that poor woman under obedience not only not to receive the sacraments from him, but to not even associate with him at all.

    1. Disgraceful.

      Perhaps a kind, Catholic friend should tell her to not have anything to do with the un-Catholic pesthouse. There are decent alternatives in the area.

    2. It’s not surprising; they try to get you to cut out contact with anyone who could tell you that place is a cult. Anyone from the outside is eventually cut off.

      Look at how Palma told one family that they couldn’t say the ROSARY with Novus Ordo family members. Or how the kids are told not to be friends with anyone outside their group.

      They don’t want anyone influencing you to leave or to tell you that place is NOT Catholic. Basically, if they think someone may be a threat, they will find a reason to advise you to stay away. Many of Sanborn’s expertly trained priests do not even know their faith. Some tell you in confession that some venial sins are mortal (yet, we al know from catechism what it takes to be a mortal sin and they don’t even abide by that.) Some of his trained priests don’t allow outsiders to participate in things like Blessing of throats. Others won’t even let you step foot in the church until you’ve spoke to him (mind you, I’m not meaning to take part in confession or communion, just go to mass.)

      Sanborn’s churches will never grow. People eventually see through the facade of Catholicism. The rigorous and saintly church it appears to be is nothing like what it is. The churches he has left behind always say the same thing, “our church became a parish when he left. They are happier, more supportive of the church and the other parishioners. There is a love of God that seems to go about when he leaves. True charity begins to shine within the place AFTER he leaves.”

    3. We can only pray that more people hear your message.

    4. Sinburn did something similar with a family which used to go to a traditional church in Tampa. The pastor said that they used to be friends for a long time then they suddenly disappeared...after a while one of the board members received a letter that basically saying that they should get rid of their priest, because one cannot be certain that he's valid, and if he's valid then he's probably not trained enough to officiate in his priestly office and that Sinburn had a few young, "very well trained " priest available to come and take over...

      Of course! Because the people there just build a beautiful new church that's already paid off.

    5. Yes, we know all about that story. The woman emailed all kinds of nonsense from the Cheeseball to convince people to leave. The vast majority did not.

    6. I'm glad there are people who still have some common sense left...

    7. It will be needed when the cult makes another attempt to scoop up the property.

    8. Anyone know who ordained Fr.Fattore in Tampa,FL?

    9. We believe it was Juan José Squetino S., from the Thục-line through the Dattessen sublineage. You may find Squetino's lineage HERE.

    10. Will you please go on a bit more about this story- Father Fattore has guided my family in FL for years and I was stunned to find out it was Sanborn making a play for his church. I only just discovered your blog. Fattore is doing something right... his church is growing (without a school!) and they built AFTER they had the money. Is it over yet?

    11. Fr. Fattore is a very fine man — a model for the right behavior during this prolonged ecclesial crisis— and what the cult attempted to do was unconscionable. They manipulated a very weak and ignorant person in an effort to take over the Tampa chapel. Although they did not succeed at the time, sources have told us that there may be another attempt to take over. Apparently some disgruntled members of the Tampa chapel left for MHT and told the cult masters of a dispute over the election of the corporation president. We don't yet know all the concrete details, but it seems that the cult might think it has an opening to try again.

      We don't know whether this second démarche is over yet. Perhaps Big Don's health problems have slowed it down, and maybe the Kid doesn't want to try to take over.

      IOHO, the problem isn't over. When the cult masters have their eyes on a cash-cow property, they don't give up very easily. Don't forget, they've still got an outpost in AZ in hopes of taking over OLS again.

      The only resolution will be if the Tampa faithful band together and support Father by making sure no one can take over. It's tough to do, but some chapels have been able to resist cult master takeovers (e.g., Lawrence, MA). But it takes resolution and corporate know-how. It might be wise to seek counsel on the matter.

  12. Anyone can search court records to follow bd out if money or the hand issue was the actual reason for the one who runs the group leaving. Is Sanborn in charge or was Sanborn afraid of losing his money train?
    Check this out:

  13. It looks like Sanborn’s top money man was involved in a lawsuit around the same time as the move. Coincidence? Anyone know what the lawsuit was about? He was a defendant against a company similiar to his own.

  14. This is a fun read:
    Thus, in March of the opening year of our new millenium, the future New Mexico missionary entered into the rigors of theology and the rude life of the ascetic, first in Argentina, and then, in October of 2001, at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary under the direction of his Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn, one of the most eloquent voices through which our Church has ever spoken.

    In her perfect economy of grace, the Church wasted no time in exploiting for the good of souls the many talents Fr. Federico had shown throughout his life, by appointing him professor at the prestigious Queen of All Saints Academy in Brooksville, Florida. There, the good padre, hardly a day older than his own pupils, found himself as capable as they in the use of the all-important soccer ball.

    1. What a hoot! We're sure we know the author of the purple prose.

    2. Would think you'd find this even more of a hoot: "Padre Federico would later initiate the seminarians of this glorious institute in the arcanes of the Church's sacred language of Latin as their professor."

    3. Everytime someone bashes traditional priests and bishops supposed lack of intelligence or training,
      I immediately remind myself
      Pius XII was in seminary for ONLY 2 YEARS.

    4. The case of Pius XII's education is an entirely different matter. He received a special dispensation and was an external student. Far different from the situation of the malformed sedes of today.

  15. Sanborn is not about spreading the word. He is about preserving the word among the elite with the $$$. He is not interested in anybody that does not think and agree with him.

    It is a pity, but that is the meaning of being A Catholic to this group of groupies.

  16. A former seminarian at the pesthouse swamp, who had completed law school, made once a comment that a certain family has awfully may ruined cars around their property...and insinuated to look like insurance fraud to him. He also said that Florida is the only state within the US where you don't have to pay your debtors back when you file bankruptcy.

    1. How about all the short sales in Florida with this group? Transferring the property to the wife, and then putting the house up for a short sale.

      This group seems to have a lot of transfers of property/companies when they get in trouble.

      Buying property so that they can transfer it to the sisters because they know they would meet resistance?

    2. If anyone would just follow the paper trails, I think there is a great deal of coverup. For instance, there are a lot of cooperations tied to Most Holy Trinity seminary. Yet, the cooperations dissolve or change names once transfer of land is given to the seminary or the convent. Cnc investments from Michigan is one (signed by Roy Selway) about 15 years ago that transferred land to Sanborn. There have been others throughout the years, and then you never hear too much of the company again.


    11. The clergy of the Institute shall follow the instructions of the Superior General concerning the subjects of their sermons.

  18. IV. Parish Bulletins

    18. The clergy of the Institute shall place in their parish bulletin all information which is required by the Superior General.

    V. Design and Decoration of Churches

    19. The clergy of the Institute must submit for approval to the Superior General any design for construction or decoration of churches, and shall follow the instructions of the Superior General in these matters.

    1. Is it any wonder why no one besides the MHT captives joined the "Institute"?

    2. Hello. Not the brightest candle on the traddie candelabra here. I am curious. Why would any sane (if any exist) sede trad priest entertain even a remote interest in joining Sinburn’s Institute? Reading over the “rules” I discern that every action and thought of the priests will be controlled by Sinburn. (Will he mandate what undergarments they must wear as well?)

      Will he at least provide medical insurance and a retirement program for his minions? Why does Sinburn feel the need to have such control over these men and their chapels aside from extorting massive monetary payments from they and their chapels. Will he demand having majority control over their corporations, and be signatory on all of their bank accounts? Will their sermons be taken from written texts penned by Sinburn or even Bishop Joey? He insists they publish his mandates in their bulletins. Will he impose his ever changing dress codes on these chapels as well? Let’s see now, how high can heels be for the ladies?

      From what I’ve witnessed over the years, most if not all of these men, once ordained, can’t wait to be on their own, have their own chapels and congregations, and impose their renditions of the pre-Vatican II Church on their followers. Many eventually kiss up to one of the many roaming bishops to make them a bishop. Why would they give this up for Sinburn? Have any of the SGG clergy ordained by Bishop Dan joined this Institute? Does this sickness of Sinburn’s even have a name? Any psychiatrists here willing to venture a guess?

      Who is Sinburn accountable to?

    3. 1:59 PM

      All great questions, many of which, we guess, the targeted recruits asked themselves and answered (to Big Don's disadvantage).

      According to the B'ville cult's website, here are the current members:

      Superior General: Bishop Donald J. Sanborn

      Priests: Fr. Joseph Selway, Fr. Nicolás Despósito, Fr. Federico Palma, Fr. Germán Fliess, Fr. Philip Eldracher.

      Deacon: Rev. Mr. Damien Dutertre.

      Seminarians: Caleb Sons, Henry de la Chanonie, Luke Petrizzi, Tobias Bayer.

      It's obviously not been updated because the Kid is still listed under the "priest" category and there's no mention of Sons as a subdeacon. (Not updating the website is a clear indicator that the project is dead in the water. Maybe the persistent rumors of retirement have some foundation.)

      That oversight aside, we strongly suspect there are no other names, not even members of Dannie's clown crew or My Way Carlito: the first group takes orders from "One Hand," and the second jealously guards his independence.

      In common parlance, we might call such a manipulative individual a control freak. Perhaps it might be more professionally diagnosed as histrionic personality disorder.

      But who knows?

      Whatever's going on is certainly not attracting more members. Lack of accountability may be a big factor in the firm resistance to join.

  19. I am wondering if this month’s CMRI newsletter is a salvo towards the Institute? See the Holy Week article.

    1. Could be. Maybe it was necessary to combat the propaganda campaign in AZ.

  20. Pivarunas' 'logic' is such that if Papa Pacelli has lived another ten years or so they would be happily celebrating the novus ordo.

  21. It’s ridiculous to equate a Catholic rite (Pius XII) with a non-Catholic sectarian rite (Paul VI, Novus Ordo).

    One came from the Church, therefore is protected by the Church, the other is not. It’s not for Catholics to judge the approved rite of the Catholic Church, and then decide they won’t use it.

    Bp. Pivarunas and CMRI got this one right.

    1. The Pivster has not got anything right in his life. Paul VI is very clear where the origin of the new order lay.

    2. I don’t trust Paul VI and anything he said. I do trust Pius XII. I will stick with him and the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, which cannot contain error or lead us to impiety, or in any way lead us astray.

    3. Ultimately your sticking with anyone is a matter of private judgement. Do not forget that some people believe Papa Pacelli was an antipope. You choose to accept novelty on the basis of your belief that Papa Pacelli was a 'true pope' and your belief that a true pope cannot err. I'll stick with history.

    4. You mean your interpretation of history, which you have admitted is at least partially based on your trust of Paul VI’s statements.

      Anyone that says Pius XII is an antipope is a schismatic, so I am not concerned with them, or their twisted theology.

    5. No, an objective reading of history particularly the accounts in the various periodicals of the Liturgical Congresses at Maria-Laach, St. Odile and Lugano where the form of what would later be called the Pauline Mass was thrashed out. Paul VI's statement just confirms matters.

      Schismatic? Now that really is pots calling kettles black. Pivster comes from Old Catholic stock. As has been noted on this blog numerous times if Pius XII was a pope then the consecration of bishops without papal mandate by anyone is a schismatic act and those persons coming out of such acts have no jurisdiction in the Catholic Church.

    6. It's highly possible Pius XII lost his office in 1951 by changing the centuries old Easter Vigil & simultaneously violating the Council of Trent.
      I know there will be disagreements.
      God bless.

  22. NO TRUE POPE could have ever instituted the Novus Ordo Missae, so Bp. Pivarunas'logic stands proud.

    1. That is a hypothesis, not a proven, verifiable, fact.

    2. @ 11:11 am
      No. It's a corollary based on sound Catholic theology. What? You think that true Popes could give the Church invalid sacraments? That true popes go about tampering with the very words Christ used Himself? That true popes would violate De Defectibus? It's only a "hypothesis" to the truly ignorant.

  23. Pius XII flat sucked and destroyed the Apostolic Holy Week & many other ancient traditions circa 1951-1958.
    He was so busy saving the elder bros during WW2 that his concern for dying Catholics in East Europa was never mentioned.
    Pius XII is a stain on the history of our Holy Catholic Church.

  24. From all the consagrations done by Bishop Thuc, the most doubtful one on its validity is the one of the french Gerard de Lauries, due to the simoniac and for convincing the Vietnamese bishop with lies and pretending been sedevacantist ( just for convenience) including Ricossa, Munari and Nitoglia.
    Fathers Ricosa, Nitoglia and Munari deceived Bishop Thuc.
    So one morning a few months later bishop Munari presented himself dressed as a civilian in front of everyone in IMBC and said he was leaving due to conscience's problems, and that if he stayed there for one more day he will become (mad- crazy) for the terrible tricks and lies they perpetrated towards Bishop Thuc to consacret Lauriers and then himself by Lauriers with lies and tricks.

    1. Verdadcatoloca,

      Do you have a source to substantiate these accustions?

    2. That's a tremendous amount of gossip without a citation & verifiable sources.

    3. Sir, you simply don't know what you are talking about. You take for trustworthy a comment appeared on a post of your own blog. Please refrain from spreading false allegations.

    4. Fr.Munari was consecrated by Bp.Mckenna,who himself was consecrated by
      Bp.Des Lauriers.
      This original comment is false lying gossip or Bp.Munari is being used as a catalyst for lying/bearing false witness.
      Don't damage a man's reputation especially if he isn't here to defend himself.

    5. Bp Munari was consecrated by Bp Des Lauriers. I am astonished by the amount of inaccurate information around him.

    6. My fault and I apologise for saying Bp.Munari was consecrated by Bp.McKenna.

    7. Can you find out why Munari stopped being a bishop?

    8. Because of personal matters, and none of our business.

    9. Personal matters were, problems of conscience about the doubt of the consecration of Gerard de lauries

    10. Sister Mariela: NO. Some more worldly matters.

    11. What year did Munari stop acting as a bishop?

  25. Pius XII was in an impossible situation in WW2. To judge him harshly is to show a lack of charity.

    Rome gave its reasons for the reformed Holy Week: empty churches, read the decree, Your duty as a Catholic is to trust the Pope and his motives, rather than trusting your private judgment.

    1. Trust? Pacelli was the kind of rogue who would buy chickens from the cash and carry for a couple of dollars, stick a Kosher stamp on them and sell them for $10 to the gullible.

    2. He wasn't a Pope past 1941/1942.
      I do not nor will not trust anything related to Pius XII!

    3. Then you are out of the Church and in schism.

    4. I will just blame Bugnini,Bea,and those
      "Horrible Men" who surround me.
      If Pius XII defenders can use this embarrassing comparison,its good enough for me.
      Funny how so many used the same excuse for Paul VI & John Paul II.
      God bless Ta Ta.

  26. Rome gave its reasons for Vatican II, Siri had his reasons for not accepting the Pontificate, Pius XII had his reasons for allowing the most Sacred Part of our Faith to be sacrificed to Rabbi Tannenbaum. All of them did not have Faith in Almighty God to follow His Will.

    Our Faith is eternal and our Church does not begin and end with St. Pius XII. I choose to follow the Faith of all time.

    Bishop Kelly once upon a time gave a very good piece of advice, " Follow the Faith, not the man". Too bad he did not practice what he preached to his parishioners.

    1. Pacelli is not a Saint,
      Thank Almighty God!!!

  27. Sorry this is a bit random but get a load of this:

    "Considered the most important and widely esteemed theologian of the twenty-first century, Fr. Anthony Cekada continues to garner international praise for his outstanding theological analysis of the New Mass entitled, Work of Human Hands (Philothea Press: 2010). This formidable masterpiece, lauded even by some of Rome's top Vatican theologians, makes Fr. Cekada a giant in the world of liturgical scholarship. Among his many irrefutable studies is the erudite Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass (Tan Books: 1991). The immensely popular Ottaviani Intervention (Philothea Press: 2010) established Fr. Cekada as the pre-eminent journalist of Vatican II modernism. A tireless apologist for the Catholic faith as well as a professor of theology at our nation's finest Catholic seminary, Fr. Cekada has published innumerable articles along with some celebrated pamphlets, including Traditionalists, Infallibility,and the Pope. Fr. Cekada is best known for his clarity and philosophical penetration, the fruits of irreproachable fidelity to the method of St. Thomas combined with a broad classical education."

    1. Yeah, we saw that bit of craziness when we looked at the site. You'd think even Checkie would be embarrassed by such nonsense.

      Did you get a chance to read the blurb about Dannie who's loved all over the world?

    2. They probably wrote it themselves!

    3. "Loved by Catholic faithful throughout the world" -- No, only the cult loves its own.

      I am a "SSPXer" if you will but the more and more I read about SGG and the sedevacantists the more I realize that they have made themselves a little "Church" with its own hierarchy all under the pretext of "preserving the faith".

    4. Just like the SSPX &
      SSPX-Resistance are separate but have common ground,there are different groups of traditional Catholics holding the sedevacantist opinion.
      Not all of us bow to Bp's Dolan/Sanborn.

      Personally I hold the sedevacantist opinion yet view the Lefevbre like as valid & Catholic.

      Sedevacantist & SSPX parishioners have more in common with each other as opposed to standard secular Godless Western Civilization.

      It's similar to the Bp.Fellay lukewarm moderate Indult type as opposed to Bp.Williamson being somewhat more sensible and Catholic.

      Catholics of all traditional persuasions have yet to see the advantages of being unified or at least friendly neighbors.

  28. St Pius X taught:

    “The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

    It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

    And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

    Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

    This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls.”

    Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union
    November 18, 1912

  29. St Pius X taught:

    This is all very credible, and should be believed at the time it was written.

    However, today we do not have A St. Pius X, instead we have a demon from God knows where who just recently claimed to a Communist Italian Atheist reporter that there is no hell. That's right, no hell! According to this Jesuit Francis, those who do not repent, "Just go Poof" Well there goes Christ, and the whole Faith! "Poof!"

    Rome is now under damage control to discredit the Communist Atheist. WHY? He is only doing what Communists have done against the Church since their inception.

    So now I ask you, who is the deceiver and destroyer, the Jesuit,( the so called Vicar of Christ), or the Atheist, the denier of Christ?

    1. Yes, but it does apply to Pius XII who is being attacked on here by so called Catholics.

      St. Pius X did not say, “apply these principles to some Popes, not others,” he taught us a universal principle that applies to all Popes. If he wanted to qualify it, he would have.

      The fact that these principles cannot be applied to Francis is one more proof among so many others that he is not a Pope.

    2. I don't believe that is is an attack against Pius XII. I think it is more like trying to piece the puzzle together, to try and understand how we got to where we are today.

      Let's be honest, someone is guilty of not protecting the " Bride of Christ", and in this case the buck stops at the TOP.

      The old rule still applies, once you give an inch, there is always someone who wants the yard.
      Once Pius XII surrendered Holy Week, especially Good Friday, it was a ringing of he Chow Bell to the Sharks of Vatican II to destroy the Mass little by little. Only now, Rome has not only destroyed the Mass, it has become The Seat of the Anti-Christ" as predicted by Our Lady Of La Salette.

    3. He approved the aptly named
      "Liturgical Change Commission" in 1948.
      The ancient venerable
      After Midnight Holy Communion fast was reduced to 3 hours in 1953 & 1957.
      (Water is okay to drink until you walk in church and liquids are fine 1 hour before Holy Mass.
      What a severe lack of respect for the real presence.)

      Other than Bishop Robert Dymek I havent met a Priest or Bishop that encourages the After Midnight Holy Communion Fast.

      Bp.Dymek helped me comprehend why the lack of proper fasting for Holy Communion is an important reason why the traditional Catholic movement suffers from disunity and trouble.

      Pius XII was the first
      Novus Ordo "Pope" and it's based on facts not opinion.
      Just 1 look at the comments on this entry is enough info to avoid ANYTHING Pius XII changed.

      To their credit there are Men like Fr.Hall,Bp.Petko, Bp.Ramolla,Fr.Fattore,
      who are keeping the pre-1950 traditions alive.

      I don't know Bp's.Dolan or Sanborn so this isn't plugging SGG.
      The pre-1950 Calendar/Holy Week/traditions are extremely rare nowadays.
      Any chapel obeying the pre-1950 traditions is akin to the Catacombs pre-315 A.D.

  30. "We changed the oldest most ancient Apostolic traditions because the churches aren't full."

    Does this include the venerable after midnight Holy Communion fast too? (1953/1957)
    I couldn't resist that little jab. ;)

    Maybe Bp.Pacelli (I firmily believe he lost the office by 1956) should've encouraged western Catholics to take vacation days during the triduum instead of first wave Novus Ordo implementation.

    Pius XII literally approved the Liturgical Change Commission circa 1948!
    Don't tell us he wasnt aware of and didn't approve of the John XXIII/Paul VI changes!!

    John XXIII celebrated the pre-1950 Holy Week within the Vatican circa 1959 & there are pics to prove this happened.

    Could it be John XXIII was hoping to have momentum & support to scratch all the Pius XII changes?
    After all he made Bugnini go away while he was Pontiff.
    This is a guess & I could be wrong so please don't misquote me.

    During the mid 1950's,Bp.Montini (future Paul VI) was promoted to the same post that Bp.Ratti held before being elected Pius XI.

    Bp.Montini was promoted by Pius XII to Archbishop of Milan and would be elected Paul VI in 1963.
    It was false Pope Paul VI that brought back Bugnini.

    It was Pius XII who approved of and hired Bugnini for his Liturgical Change Commission.

    It was Pius XII who also bent over backwards for the Elder Bros and signed forged false baptismal certificates during WW2!

    It was recently brought to my attention Pits XII didn't do ANYTHING to help persecuted & tortured Catholics in East Europa during & after WW2.

    1. None of this proves anything against the legitimacy of Pius XII.

  31. Anonymous March 31, 2018 at 1:53

    Correctly pointed out:
    .."Pope Pius XII literally approved the Liturgical Change Commission circa 1948!
    Don't tell us he wasn't aware of and didn't approve of the John XXIII/Paul VI changes!!"..

    Absolutely correct!

    Pius XII made Roncalli, (a known Rosicrucian), Patriarch of Venice, and made Montini, ( known to have communist ties), Archbishop of Milan, both of them guaranteed the Cardinals hat.
    Is this what a good Pope does to protect the Faith and the Church?

    This is not hard. We have history on our side to prove that when Pius XII went out, in waltzed satan with all his minions.

    1. I think Satan waltzed in the Vatican once Pius XII signed forged fake baptismal certificates during WW2.

      Subsequently and not surprisingly Pius XII changed the Psalter circa 1945.
      Why fix something that isn't broken?

      1948 sees leftists like Bugnini Bea plus their clandestine Liturgical change commission receiving Pius XII' approval and blessing.

      Bp.Pivarunas hopefully means well but he is wrong on practicing the first wave of Novus Ordo aberrations. (1951-1958)

  32. All Catholics who support the New Holy Week are only adding to their own ultimate destruction.They through ignorance, are adhering to something that has already been proven to have been the catalyst for the welcoming in of Vatican II, and the promised Age of Destruction.

    The devil destroyed Rome in less than 70 years.Now all he has to do is to continue his lies, while the last generation of pre-Vatican II slowing die off, and then the direct line of Tradition for over 2,000 years dies with them.

    Devil sits back and waits to take the world to a place that according to the direct lineage of Pius XII, does not exist. HELL!

    IF ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, what is it then before the Throne of God?
    Bear in mind, Christ spoke more of hell than He did of Heaven.

  33. Anonymous March 31, 2018 at 8:21 PM

    ..."Bp.Pivarunas hopefully means well but he is wrong on practicing the first wave of Novus Ordo aberrations. (1951-1958)"

    Please bear in mind that, "Hell is paved with those of good intentions."

    And as far as the devil waltzing in, that is just an expression. This is his domain, and our job is to keep him bound up as best as we can through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the fortress of our Faith. We cannot afford one breach in her wall of protection lest we become part of this rancid world.

    Pius XII permitted a crack in that wall of protection, and now the sewerage is flowing into Church and the world.
    "As the Church goes, so goes the world"

    How do you like Rome today? It all started with the NEW HOLY WEEK.

  34. Anonymous March 31, 2018 at 3:19 PM

    "None of this proves anything against the legitimacy of Pius XII."

    No one is saying that he is not a legitimate Pope. They are just arguing that his horrible mistakes allowed VATICAN II to walk in right after his pontificate. That means he enabled the transition, by putting like minds into powers of position to secure a Vatican II.

    If you put a known communist into power, what do you think he is going to preach? HINT! It is not going to be Catholicism.

  35. Anon 5:38 PM wrote
    “No one is saying that he is not a legitimate Pope”

    You sure about that? Re-read Anonymous March 30, 2018 at 9:27 AM, post below, who did deny Pius XII’s legitimacy post 41 or 42. You see where this stupid smear campaign leads?

    “He wasn't a Pope past 1941/1942.
    I do not nor will not trust anything related to Pius XII!”

    1. Facts about Pius XII from WW2-1958 is not a smear campaign.

  36. Anonymous March 30, 2018 at 9:27 AM


    "He wasn't a Pope past 1941/1942.
    I do not nor will not trust anything related to Pius XII!"

    I took this statement to mean his personal opinion. I can understand how you would think that he is taking away Pope Pius XII's legitimacy, but you and I both know that our opinions do not make it so. Correct?

    We as concerned Catholics are trying to stop the error of Vatican II, by adhering to the traditions of the Faith as taught by Holy Mother Church throughout the ages.

  37. Whether Pius XII was a pope or not comes down to personal opinion as it does when deciding if Paul VI, JP2 or Francis are popes. One can quote Cum ex and Canon 188,#4 along with Bellarmine, Suarez and the rest but the fact of the matter is there is no demonstrable mechanism for deposing a person occupying the Roman See.

    On the other hand respected writers have discussed universal acceptance of popes and the reality is only a tiny fraction of the world's Catholics embrace sedelandia.

    Pius XII's long catalog of errors has been touched upon above and there is an excellent very detailed series on Tradition in Action by a Brit writer called Dialogue Mass.

    There is no doubt that Pius XII prepared the way for Vatican II and appointed key players to the highest positions of power.

  38. This is all true. Pius XII for whatever reason opened the door ajar to allow the rest of history to take place. It is because of his direct actions that has created all of the heresy now coming out of the Vatican.

    What is the definition of insanity?

    Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

    The New Holy Week IS the Catalyst that opened the door to Vatican II, and all its Anti-Popes, and Heresies that have followed and will continue to follow, until God says different.

    We get the clergy and the leaders we deserve. Obviously, we are at that point in history where we will have to face our own demons and pray that we wind up on the side of the Lamb and not the goat.

    I think the more we educate ourselves, and adhere to the teachings of the Church going back in time, will lead us to a far better place with our Faith, and how to endure these treacherous times through the traditions of Holy Mother Church.

  39. Verias April 2, 2018 at 5:39 AM

    ..."but the fact of the matter is there is no demonstrable mechanism for deposing a person occupying the Roman See"...

    How right you are! If you want to depose a sitting Pope, ask for the best. Go to Rome! They have deposed more Popes by poison than we have assassinated Presidents with bullets.
    They not only depose, but they dispose as well, and all for the one price, and the masses believe it all.

  40. Is it a known fact or maybe a rather contested one as to when Card. Lienart might have started to sympathize with the Freemasonry?

    1. According to sources that published the information about membership contained in the Italian register of secret societies, the date of his initiation into Freemasonry was October 15, 1912.