FALL 2014 MAILBAG #3

Editor's Note: This little nasty gram is particularly of apropos in light of the synod that ended last week in Rome.

You SWcandal Mongers with your lurid Revelations about the Traditional Movement have destroyed the Faith. Pope Francis is going to split the Church right down the Middle. There will be no place for the People to go because of you. When they get on line and start reading your Gossip and Insinuations and Detraction and Muckraking they will stay away from the Traditional Mass. I know several families who wanted to attend one of Bishop Sanborns Parishes but were scared off. Another family refuses to go to Bishop Dolans Masses because of what you say about his Validity. You need to make Reparation to save your Soul!! Maybe you will receive Forgiveness. Don't you understand we need Priests and should be grateful for the few we have??? "Mockery and Reproach are of the Proud, and Vengeance as a Lion shall lie in wait for him (Ecclus. 21, 27)"

A capital letter if there ever was one!

Posting at the close of the infamous 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family, we are inclined to agree with our correspondent at least on one count: there might be a schism, although probably not "down the middle." A majority of today's Novus Ordites are in favor of Bergie's liberalizing, "feel-good" views. Nevertheless, if a rupture occurs, a sizable number could exit.

We disagree, however, with the writer's presumption that the leavers would reflexively flock to sede chapels owned and controlled by mammonite cult masters. The principal beneficiary of any schism would be the SSPX (and the FSSP, if it also should sever ties to Frankie). The events of last week will make it hard for the progressives in the SSPX to align with Papa Pancho now. But even if Fellay prevails, a split would produce an entirely new traditionalist dispensation. Perhaps there would emerge several umbrella groups -- a Roman neo-latitudinarianism as it were -- so as to accommodate the entire spectrum of conservative Catholicism, from new-massers with deep, abiding moral values to Tridentine enthusiasts sick of a half century of reckless and wicked innovation.

That means most, if not all, of the people who'd abandon Bergoglio's brave, new, World-Church would find a home somewhere other than in Sedelandia.  For that reason, few would have a motive to seek refuge in the justly abhorred SW-Ohio-Brooksville cult. In our view, if a schism were to occur, more people would leave Tradistan than would enter. Traddies could unload a ton of clerical baggage by going elsewhere, where legitimacy appears more certain. At a neutral venue, they might even be able to find common ground with long-estranged family members who refuse to sing "Kumbaya" with Bergie. 

But it's foolish to speculate. All sorts of earth-shaking wonders could materialize in the next year or so. That's still no reason to endure all the nonsense of the cult masters. And you don't have to put up with "psychologically fragile" indie priests either. Both the lone-wolf nut jobs and cult intriguers are poison to the Catholic soul. Priests are supposed to be spiritual fathers, not solitary basket cases or whip-cracking, pocket-lining plantation overseers. Better none than to suffer the damage wrought by isolated depressives and uneducated gangs of money-mad control freaks who don't know what they're doing. (Plus, remember that a large number of Tradistani clergy have doubtful orders, so what's the difference between those cruds and N.O. priests?)

There are still salutary traditional communities available to people who do not want to join the cult. Near many large cities, competing traditional chapels unaffiliated with Traddie cult masters or shaky, independent loners offer real alternatives. For instance, in Tampa, Florida, traditionalists can join the charming Immaculate Heart of Mary Chapel, faithfully cared for by humane, level-headed priests from Argentina.

Finally, by way of a correction to our exercised correspondent, we answer that we Readers never engage in gossip, which is defined as a trifling, often groundless rumor of a personal, sensational or intimate nature, or just plain idle talk. Our content is serious and solidly rooted in facts obtained by meticulous inquiry before we post. We take as our guide another verse from Ecclesiasticus: "Before thou inquire, blame no man: when thou hast inquired, reprove justly" (11:7).

We, therefore, have always had a just and sufficient reason -- the good of souls and the material well-being of traditional Catholics -- for revealing what we do, so we're not guilty of unjust detraction, calumny or rash judgment. Our consciences are clean. As for muckraking, well, we're proud to belong to the distinguished company of vigilant watchdogs of the public's welfare. And we wouldn't mind it either if our correspondent had characterized our apostolate as "yellow journalism," though we'd have to wait until our circulation reached the millions before we could justly lay claim to that coveted title of honor. Had Tradistan raised up a Lincoln Steffens or an Ida Tarbell years ago, traditional Catholics would be considerably better off today, both spiritually and financially.

NEWS FLASH!

Dateline -- October 25, 2014, Lawrence, MA: Next week we'll interrupt our fall-mailbag series to report on an unsavory back story to today's joyous (and valid) priestly ordination here in the Bay State. 

It seems some unidentified sede scumbag rent-seekers were frightened at the prospect of strong competition from a traditional bishop based in Latin America.

You'll see that nothing's too low for the gringo sede trash.

Fortunately, the clandestine ecclesiastical freebooters now can't get their greedy hands on the chapel -- a real Catholic church, not a tarted-up Quonset hut -- along with its community's assets.

Tune in and be prepared for bowel-twisting, moral outrage!

FALL 2014 MAILBAG #2

Editor's Note: Here's a very timely -- and opportune -- communication about the rector, whom we've been neglecting of late. We hope this makes up for our public inattention. (Privately we've been following his travails very closely.)

Readers, have you seen the Sep. Most holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter? What say you to to this money seeking rant from Sanborn? "It is absolutely necessary for the survival of Catholicism during this Modernist crisis that this seminary [Most Holy Trinity in Brooksville, FL] continue to function. If the lay people are to preserve their Catholic Faith, they will need well-trained Catholic priests. If they do not have them, they will sink into error, heresy, and moral corruption." Strong stuff. Care to comment?

Indeed, we shall. We have a lot to say, in fact.

First off, the statement is completely false. Naturally we're too discreet to call it a lie. We prefer to think that the rector, like that Aeschylean President of the Immortals, is having his sport with us.

What's the basis for our opinion? Well, to tell you the truth, it's in Big Don's very own words --  and in his self-published behavior. For if he really believed MHT was so necessary, why did he invite as his companion to Europe a "priest" who (1) did not attend MHT Seminary and (2) who never enrolled in any brick-and-mortar seminary? Uneven-Steven McFaker  -- without whom the rector, according to his own admission in the same newsletter, "could not have undertaken the journey" -- studied independently, first with a priest out West (until they parted ways) and then for a spell with Erroneous Antonius.

Why didn't the rector choose one of his own completers to accompany him? Could he not have traveled to Central and Eastern Europe if he had no other option than to invite an MHT trainee?

He could've tapped the Forlorn Finn, a McFaker colleague at the SW Ohio cult center. The Finn's company might have proved a fine gesture in Hungary, where the national language is distantly related to Finnish. Also, wouldn't the Poles, the Germans, and the Austrians have been impressed that a fellow European had attended Big Don's swampland seminary? Wouldn't you think that, if the training were so good in Brooksville, the rector would have seized the opportunity to show off his own man rather than some stranger "formed" outside his supervision, someone who's an alien to the culture of a formally organized traditional Catholic "seminary"?

Or is it the case that the rector didn't have confidence in his own products, so he was forced to choose an outsider? Or did the possibility of the McFaker's  succeeding Dannie play a large part in his decision?

We don't know the answer. But it's obvious the rector must believe in his heart that Catholicism in West Chester, OH, Rochester, MN, and Grand Forks, ND, can survive without priests trained at MHT Seminary. Likewise Big Don must be certain the lay folk there won't sink into error, heresy, and moral corruption. If you ask us, it seems that a "priest" who wasn't "trained" at MHT must have been better suited than his own thick-skulled completers. Otherwise, surely the rector would have selected an MHT trainee, right?

If Big Don didn't want the Forlorn Finn for some reason, why didn't he ask one of the others, for instance, the slavishly devoted Skipper from Michigan? Uneven-Steven could have substituted at the Michigan chapel while the rector and Skippy traipsed about Europe. If Big Don were in the mood to flout his principles, it would have been a grand and welcome gesture to show the forgetful Skipper that skipping the consecration at Mass was no obstacle to representing "well-trained" sedevacantism at its best and brightest.

It's settled, then.  Big Don's own actions assure us that the continued operation of the MHT pesthouse is definitely not an imperative, no matter what he shouts from the pulpit. Don't you agree?

That means Traddies are now free to get their Catholic priests in all sorts of ways other than from a so-called "seminary." And if the magnificent rector is O.K. with a non-seminary-formed "priest," then Traddies should be fine with one, too.  And with such priests there's no danger of the laity's falling into error, heresy, and moral corruption either, or else why would the Big Don sanction the McFaker's presence both in West Chester, Ohio,  and in his entourage abroad (and occasionally at MHT in front of the quivering, weak-minded young "seminarians")? Furthermore, why would the rector suffer his three completers in West Chester, namely, Lurch, the Forlorn Finn, and Bede the Unsure (viz., of his validity), to associate as colleagues with such a "priest" if there were any danger to souls? Clearly there's no problem at all in the Donster's mind. None in the slightest, thank you!

Now since you all know from the rector's approval of the McFaker that MHT trainees are really not needed for the survival of the faith and the weal of your souls, the good news is that you don't need to support MHT financially. Save your money and take your kids to Disney World -- or to the orthodontist. You can get priests just as ignorant as the completers at a far cheaper price.

Uneven-Steven's disgraceful, error filled exposition of the Summa on Restoration Radio is proof that you don't need an MHT "formation" to be audaciously clueless and mired in error. Anyone can be like the French completer who couldn't bless holy water without a moral crisis and who once administered so much salt to an infant at baptism that the baby got sick and the ceremony had to be interrupted. Also, how about the case of the MHT completer who couldn't perform a burial service? And let's not forget about the completers who, like the McFaker, were ordained by "One-Hand Dan," and hence possess doubtful orders!

You see, you don't need the seminary at all. You can get ignorant, doubtful, malformed "priests" without recourse to the pesthouse.

Isn't that a relief? No more digging deep to fund overpriced and poorly constructed additions to the "seminary." No more underwriting budget-busting re-do's resulting from bad workmanship and supervision. No more quarterly payments of your second-collections for "seminary" support. No more monthly or annual donations. No more loud, fist-pounding sermons demanding that you keep the pesthouse afloat in the steamy swamp to the detriment of your family's treasure and your own retirement. 

Thanks, Big Don, a.k.a. "The Mauler of the Modernists," for setting us straight.  Possible loss of the faith! Threats of error! Danger of heresy! Moral corruption!  *Whew!* You had us scared for a minute there.We didn't know you were just pulling our leg, you big, ol' kidder, you! 

A postscript...

We can't resist sharing another little example of the rector's intellectual sloppiness. In his stilted travelogue,  he wrote of the  "123 days of a brutal communist regime under the leadership of Bela Kuhn" (sic!) in Hungary. The trouble is, the revolutionary's name is spelled Béla Kun. Even with the entire web at his fingertips, the rector couldn't repay Magyar hospitality with the correct spelling of a historical figure's name.  We could forgive the missing diacritical mark on the forename, but the surname's misspelling is unpardonable. What an amateur! Luckily the Europeans will soon discover the truth for themselves (with a little bit of helpful outside assistance, to be sure).

FALL 2014 MAILBAG #1

Editor's Note: It's time to catch up on our seasonal correspondence. Here's an excerpt from an e-mail of a follower who has carefully studied our arguments urging "One-Hand Dan" to seek conditional ordination and consecration. We confess that this is a very popular e-mail topic, and interest in it is increasing. That's why we're working overtime to produce a document summarizing our rebuttal/refutation of Tony Baloney's error-infested defense of one-handed orders. It will be ready in English this fall, and we hope a Spanish translation will be available by late winter.

This is a minor point, but can you explain what Father Cekada meant when he wrote [in his monograph on one-handed orders, section III], "To assert that imposing one hand instead of two renders a priestly ordination doubtful runs afoul of yet another principle in sacramental theology: form determines matter"? Did Father Cekada mean that as long as the sacramental form was correct, you could use one or two hands or even an elbow, or your middle finger or your right big toe to designate the receiver of the blessing?

We've said before that we won't try to divine what goes on in the Blunderer's untutored noggin. When we re-read section III of his monograph, we could see the grounds for our correspondent's observation. However, we can't imagine even Tony Baloney's affirming that anything other than hands (or, in his case, one hand) would do. He's just such a sloppy thinker and writer that he opens himself up to attack because he leaves so much out. Inasmuch as his monograph was obviously intended for both the clergy and the laity, he should have explained what determine means in theological and philosophical parlance (assuming he knows the technical definition).

Below is a shortened version of a long, detailed answer to our correspondent. Much of what we had to say was amply covered in last year's thoroughgoing rebuttal/refutation of the Blunderer's monograph "The Validity of Ordination with One Hand."  Nevertheless, since our correspondent raised an issue we hadn't directly addressed, and since it's always of value to reaffirm our position given that it's often misrepresented as an effort to prove Dannie's orders are invalid, -- for us, they're doubtful -- we thought we'd share the substance of our reply with the reading public.

The word determine, in a Scholastic context, doesn't mean, as it sometimes does in American English, "to settle or decide by a choice of alternatives or possibilities." There's no choice of the matter of a sacrament since no one can change the Church's definitions. (Although, come to think about it, Cekada did, in fact, try to do that very thing with his perverse translation of Pius XII's apostolic constitution, didn't he? [see, v.g.,  here and here, for a refresher].) As a term of art in Scholastic philosophy, determine means "to cause a definite perfection." Thus in the phrase "form determines matter," the word determines means "actualizes."

In Catholic theology, the terms matter and form are taken by analogy* from Aristotle's hylomorphic theory where, to use John O'Neil's lucid explanation, "substantial form actualizes primordial matter, and thus produces a substance that has a determinate existence, a natural activity, and an intelligible essence."**  The difference between Aristotle's doctrine of the principles of nature and the application of his terminology to theology is that the union between sacramental form and matter is moral, not physical.***

In addition, there's no reason to give any credence to Cekada's assertion in section III that "To question the validity of an ordination conferred with one hand turns this principle on its head: Matter (one hand or two) ends up determining what form signifies." Pope Pius XII infallibly defined (1) the specific form and (2) the specific matter that would result in ordination to the priesthood. After 1947, there can be absolutely no doubt. The matter of the presbyterate is NOT an optional "one hand or two" as Cekada writes, because the Pope declared that the sole matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands, performed in silence, not the continuation thereof by stretching out the right hand. And the essential words that determine, or actualize, the imposition of the bishop's hands are Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater...insinuet. 

Therefore, the issue has been settled, and no amount of verbal gymnastics, mistranslation, or special pleading can change it. By questioning the validity of one-handed conferral of priestly orders, no one is turning any "principle on its head" by illogically asserting that the undetermined element determines the determining element. (We leave such Groucho-Marx argumentation to Tony Baloney, Uneven-Steven McFaker, and the rector.)  The truth is that Catholics who harbor doubts about the validity of one-handed priestly ordination are faithfully adhering to the abundantly clear supreme teaching authority of the Church.

The Blunderer did get one thing right, though: he used the word questioning. As we've always insisted, despite the moronic claims of Dannie's zombie defenders, we don't affirm that his one-handed ordination is invalid, for the simple reason that the Church has not officially ruled on the issue. However, in light of Pius XII's explicit teaching, one-handed ordination is questionable. Is it valid or not? Who knows? But until we get an authoritative ruling from the restored Church, we must invoke the sovereign principle of sacramental theology: in dubio pars tutior eligenda est -- when in doubt, we must choose the safer side. Remember: historically, the Church has always chosen the safer path with respect to the administration of the sacraments.

Accordingly, as Pistrina has always maintained, the only way for the faithful to be certain of the validity Dannie's orders is for him to seek re-ordination and re-consecration. Once he does that, then he must conditionally re-ordain the 14 losers he ordained when he mistakenly relied on Cekada's now demolished findings. Nothing could be easier.

What's keeping "One Hand" from doing the right thing?

* One acquaintance of ours related how his chance discovery that the cult's five-and-dime "theologian" didn't understand the analogical usage in theology of the terms matter and form convinced him that the sedes were gross amateurs. Here's his account:

In the late 1990s, I had driven down to Sharonville [the former cult-center location] one Saturday afternoon to transport a recently ordained Mexican priest to the chapel I attended. As the young priest was readying himself to leave, "the great theologian" entered the room and joined our conversation. The priest, who had studied under the learned Fr. Ricossa in Italy, casually brought up the materialiter thesis. The "eminent author" sarcastically denied its viability saying, 'You can't have matter without form.' I remember giving him the oddest look, but I held my peace. On the journey back, the young priest pressed me about my reaction. I explained that matter-form terminology is an adaptation of Aristotle's physical theory of substantial change and had to be understood in the moral, not the physical, sense -- noting that's why a penitent who on one day confesses his sins may still be validly absolved a day later because, irrespective of the time interval, the matter and form compose one moral act.  For the same reason, I argued, we can have a pope materialiter. The young priest smiled as though I were confirming his own doubts about the "scholar's" vaunted "learning." After that episode, I began to scrutinize everything the man said and wrote. Soon I realized his "scholarly" reputation was manufactured. In future conversations with the Mexican priest, he always smiled cynically when the "theologian's" name came up.

** H.J. Koren,  C.S.Sp., Readings in the Philosophy of Nature, p. 183 (Newman Press, 1965).

***For a brief treatment of the issue, see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, vol. 1, pp. 62-65 (found in Book Five, Volumes VIII - IX, in the new Loreto reprinting).

QUELLING THE CAT

Did St. Francis preach to the rabbits? Whatever for? If he really liked rabbits he would have done better to preach to the cats.  Rebecca West (adapted for our theme, P.L. Ms. West originally wrote "birds.")


In the September 21 SGG cult bulletin, Dannie really got his freak on.

As we reported last week, the "Bishop's (?) Corner" featured some frightening thoughts on taking the switch to kids.  The bulletin's poetry section continued the theme of mayhem by reprinting a 1935 poem, "Funny Bunny," which Dirtbag Dan "edited for our times." This mawkish banality written for coy spinsters took as its subject a mangled, traumatized, tulip-nibbling bunny-rabbit that endured a storm-trooper tom-cat's ripping its tiny, little tail from the caudal vertebrae. Wee Dan, with the distempered pride of a school-yard bully's dad, updated the verse by inserting the name of his marauding, feral cat, which is wont to bring him and his side kick even more gruesome offerings: "And that reckless little rabbit/Saw a bulb and stopped to nab it/With Caravaggio the cat very close upon his trail;/So, if you see a funny,/Sadly frightened little bunny,/I think you'd best not ask him how he came to lose his tail."

Dannie gets a great kick out of praising his familiar's grisly tributes of lifeless, twisted bunny carcasses. What on earth possesses him to print those ghoulish anecdotes in the Sunday bulletin? Doesn't he know that such sadistic fare may fall into the hands of impressionable youth? Why, they might even be inspired to download animal torture-videos online. (Will "crush flicks" be next?)

Where is Dannie's sense of decorum? He's positively disgusting. On the Sabbath, even zombie cultists want to read (or have read to them) fine, uplifting sentiments. But what do they get? Merciless Dirtbag Dan's free-associating about goose droppings, whipping fantasies, and, now,  ... animal maiming. Oh, the humanity! (Or is it animality?)

Great Caesar's ghost! These are suitable conversation topics for feeble-minded 12-year old boys in reform school, not supposedly Catholic "clergy." In the name of decency: This Sunday savagery must end! Even the cultlings agree  -- or so we've been told by those capable of articulation.

To that noble end, inspired by T. S. Eliot's delightful "The Old Gumbie Cat," we've commissioned light verse that "One-Hand Dan" may cut out and frame, in order to rid himself of the dark compulsion to celebrate in the Sunday bulletin his beast's bloody adventures. From now on, he need not preconize this rapacious, predatory feline, which we call "The Old Scumbie Cat," for Pistrina has mercifully done so on his behalf (and for the relief of the shuddering, bug-eyed Gerties).

I have a Scumbie Cat in view: his name is Caravaggio;

His fur is of a bloody hue, with eyes green as pistachio.

All day he stalks the parking lot or dirty lanes or automat;

He stalks and stalks and stalks and stalks – that’s what makes a Scumbie Cat!

And while the Grand Pooh-Bah is hustling for pay,

Then the Scumbie Cat makes himself ready to slay.

And as all the clerics are counting the cash,

He puts on his jackboots the burrows to smash.

He is madly obsessed with the ways of the rabbits:

They are cuddly, cute pets with sweet, gentle habits.

So as the dear nestlings lie trembling and teary,

He slashes soft tummies and bites off an earie.

I have a Scumbie Cat in view: his name is Caravaggio;

A fiercer beast you never knew -- he loves Dan’s braggadocio.

All day he stalks scared cottontails, which shelter near the Laundromat:

He stalks and stalks and stalks and stalks – that’s what makes a Scumbie Cat!

And while the Grand Pooh-Bah is hustling for pay,

Then the Scumbie Cat makes himself ready to slay.

Since he kens that the bunnies will ever keep breeding,

He is sure he will never forego carnal feeding.

So eschewing the techniques of Monsieur Jacques Pépin,

He mauls 'em to death and leaves 'em misshapen,

Then drags ‘em to Master, whose rare gourmandise

Craves a bunny burrito, all drowning in cheese.

I have a Scumbie Cat in view: his name is Caravaggio;

He hisses with the cult’s clown crew, while Phony croons solfeggio.

He stalks the rabbits sans merci, then tears to shreds their habitat;

He stalks and stalks and stalks and stalks – that’s what makes a Scumbie Cat!

And while the Grand Pooh-Bah is hustling for pay,

Then the Scumbie Cat makes himself ready to slay.

He thinks that the lay folk have but one requirement:

To secure the full funding of "One Hand’s" retirement

So he trains them to flay every kit for its pelt,

In hopes that a furrier shells out some gelt.

He disturbs the bereaved to assure a bequest

So that he can thrash jacks in the stylish Southwest.

So for Old Scumbie Cats let us now send up jeers --

From whom mammonite clergy bid cruel souvenirs.

NOW STOP IT, DANNIE!