FROM THE MOUTH OF THE FALSE PROPHET...

Don't never prophesy — onless ye know. Lowell

Events of late in Southwest Ohio beckon us to take a little stroll down memory lane.  It's the perfect occasion to recall how far off the mark Erroneous Antonius always is — and to marvel at the blindness of those souls who still think this ne'er-do-well poseur has anything to offer.

Back on June 14, 2011, gladius_veritatis posted on CathInfo a lengthy article from christorchaos.com. His post made public a April 6, 2011, e-mail sent to traditional priests by that sower-of-discord Bonehead Tone. In it, the Blunderer outlined his far-fetched predictions about the immigration status of pesthouse completer Markus Ramolla, a.k.a. the Ham Sandwich.*

Below we republish that fanciful missive embellished with the Readers' editorial comments and highlighting for emphasis. (Click here for the CathInfo text and scroll up for the original christorchaos.com post.)

Dear Fathers,

I just talked with our immigration lawyer and told him we'd gotten a couple of questions about this. He says that nothing in the recent St. Albert the Great bulletin announcement corresponded with the way U.S. immigration law really works.

Here's a summary of the lawyer's explanation:

• Fr. Ramolla went into "unlawful presence" status as soon as we terminated his R-1 status and after he was put into "removal proceedings" by ICE in December 2009. 3 This was automatic.

(BTW, the next hearing in Fr. Ramolla's removal proceeding is slated for May 19 in Cleveland. His bulletin didn't mention that at all.)

• The visa that he got though [sic] us until November, 2011 (called an I-94) then immediately became toast -- or Zweiback [sic!] if you prefer. It doesn't matter what the expiration date said. The mere existence of an ongoing removal proceeding automatically voided it.

• Once a foreigner is in "unlawful presence" status, the immigration regulations won't allow him to change to legal status while he remains in the U.S. (Exceptions: contracting marriage in the U.S., or facing political persecution and/or torture in the Fatherland).

• To apply for an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa again (together with R-1 [religious worker] status sponsored by ORCM, say), Fr. Ramolla would have to go back to Germany and try to apply for the visa and religious worker status at the U.S. Consulate.

• However, even assuming ORCM could jump through the regulations minefield of the interminable and expensive INS procedure for admitting religious workers -- will Bishop McKenna, Bishop Neville and the Sisters let the the Federal Customs and Immigration Service "inspect" their facilities at Monroe and Highland, as required? --our friend would be up against another problem.

 Fr. Ramolla's CIS record is now forever stained with the scarlet words "unlawful presence" and subject of "removal proceeding."

• And since his permanent record will also show that he remained in the U.S. for a full year after the removal proceeding began (from Dec 2009-Dec 2010), the Consulate will inform Fr. Ramolla that U.S. immigration law imposes an automatic 10-year ban on him [sic] re-entering the U.S. So, if he'd care to try applying for another visa in connection with ORCM, he would be welcome to come back again in 2021, but not before then.

I looked up the regulation on the 10-year ban. If you're interested in slogging through the legalese, it's discussed on page 8 of this document: 

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/2009/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF 

• On the $3,000 legal fee, the lawyer says that potential deportees will sometimes want to string the proceedings along for as long as possible to stay in the country, even when he's told them that in that in the long run, they'll be deported anyway. He makes them sign a statement saying he's told them they'll finally be deported.

I asked him if he were handling Fr. Ramolla's case himself, what defense would he use? After trying to spin out a couple of ideas, he said he couldn't come up with one that could ultimately work. 

• The lawyer's  conclusion on the rosy claims in the SAG bulletin: No way.

• As regards Fr. Ramolla's trial with CIS on May 19, the lawyer thinks that because their cases are essentially the same, the outcome for Fr. R. will be the same as it was for Bernie Hall: CIS will "allow" Fr. Ramolla to depart "voluntarily" within a certain period of time -- though perhaps a little more than the 60 days Bernie got.

Thus the principal points of how the lawyer reads the situation. He's been handling our immigration work for nearly twenty years now, and he's almost always been right, so I think this is probably the way things will end up.

-- Fr. Cekada

As it turned out, the Cheeseball was close to 100% wrong. Despite his efforts to disrupt the peace at St. Albert's Mass center, the Ham Sandwich was never deported. On May 12, 2011, about a month after Checkie's dead-on-arrival prognosis, the immigration court granted Rammy's motion to terminate removal proceedings. By mid 2012, "The Sammich" was well on his way to receiving his "green card" when, of his own free will, he abandoned St. Albert's for an apparently disappointing Bavarian "apostolate." (He left the U.S. not long after he got himself "consecrated" in the Slupski sublineage.**)

By fall 2015, Rambolicious, a casualty of Deacon Dan's materially deficient 1976 ordinatio unimana, was back in Southwest Ohio, where he currently runs a storefront Mass center — in the same commercial complex as the El Caporal Mexican Bar and Grill and the Salons at Snider Crossing — right smack dab in Dannie's and Checkie's territory (click here). Things appear to be going all right with no meltdowns yet, and from his YouTube channel we see he's been "ordaining" like nobody's business.

As of this writing, PL wouldn't be surprised if Rambozo has his "green card," notwithstanding Cheesy's allegation of a "scarlet" stain on his record, for we found a revealing announcement in the Ramster's bulletins of May 14 and 21. Under the headline "BISHOP RAMOLLA IN EUROPE," we read:

Bishop Markus Ramolla will be traveling to Europe visiting Italy, Spain and Germany. He will leave on May 16th and return on July 6th. Bishop Ramolla will be traveling to Verona, Italy in order to ordain Don Marco Rui Alonso to the Holy Priesthood on May 28th. From June 5th to June 12th Bishop Ramolla will be visiting a group of abandoned Traditional Catholic Faithful in Spain and will administer the Sacraments for them. Later on in June he will be visiting another group in Munich to administer various Sacraments to them as well.

Whatever his immigration status, the Ham Sandwich seems to be able to come and go as he pleases.*** Moreover, in addition to his SW Ohio shopping-center chapel, it looks as though he's picked up another mission at St. John the Baptist Tradtitional Roman Catholic Church in Louisville, KY. (Located in the former Grace Lutheran Church building, St. John's [here] could well become his "see" [LOL] one day. Good-bye strip mall!)

BTW, regarding Bernard Hall, for whom Cheesy forecast the similar dire outcome, he did indeed voluntarily  — no quotation marks needed —leave the U.S. to reside in England, France, and Italy, but received permission to re-enter a short time later. When he got back stateside, he assisted the priest at the Monroe, CT, chapel before he returned to the Cincinnati area to offer the sacraments. Recently, according to first-hand reports, he received his "green card."

The Readers needn't say much more, other than it's Tony Baloney's "rosy" prediction of an "automatic 10-year ban" on the Ramster's re-admission to the U.S. that's "toast." Things ended up proving Checkie wrong as wrong can be —  as wrong as his perverse translation of infallible papal teaching. When you think about it, the Cheeseball couldn't predict gastro-intestinal discomfort at the Texas Chili Cook-Off of online fame.

So the next time you hear that smarmy voice calling out in the bleak Tradistani wilderness, ignore it. Chances are, there's "no way" Checkie is ever right.

BEGIN YOUR OWN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CULT MASTERS TODAY BY 
STARVING THE BEAST

* In his 1987 The Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe wrote: 

But mainly you used the grand jury to indict people, and in the famous phrase of Sol Wachtler, chief judge of the State Court of Appeals, a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich," if that's what you wanted.

We've adapted the cliché to the indiscriminate TradWorld practice of consecrating virtually any loser off the street who hankers after the episcopate.

** You might be interested in reading the graceless Ham Sandwich's own 2/26/13 hand-biting mea culpa for his 5/23/12 "consecration" here (not even a full year after the tragi-comedy took place). Be sure to note where our favorite ingrate repents, "...I bitterly regret having been involved with Bishop Slupski...And I regret having accepted to be promoted to the episcopacy through Bishop Slupski." Also don't miss his torturerd thoughts about clandestine consecrations and ordinations:

Many of [Slupski's] consecrations and ordinations are done in secret, i. e., without sufficient public announcement of the fact of the ceremony. Unfortunately in my case it was done the same way and I bitterly regret that I accepted it in such a way.

"The Sammich" has clearly not embraced Édith Piaf's bravely defiant anthem, has he?

*** As a further note of interest for inquiring minds, during the brief sojourn in his native Germany (last half of 2012 until late 2015), it was reported that the hard-to-miss Ham Sandwich was on occasion sighted in the SW Ohio area.

VIRTUES LOUDLY VAUNTED, NOT PRACTICED

...ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitirum... ("he strives to transform all rites as he pleases"). Ammianus Marcellinus

Were we to tag this post, we'd classify it as a reminder — a reminder of the cult masters' infidelity to their own well-publicized principles. Long-time followers of PL will recall the Readers tackled the same subject in their June 13, 2015, post "COUNTERFEIT CATHOLICISM 3," where we observed, writing about Dannie and Checkie, "In hypocrisy-infected Tradistan, you can't expect the malformed cult masters to practice what they preach!" 

Today we'll scrutinize identical double standards practiced by Tradistan's "Superior General" of the recently announced lost-boys' club, the achingly pathetic "Roman Catholic Institute." In his cover letter to his announcement, Tradzilla grandiloquently wrote (our emphases):       

In the following pages you will find our three Directories. We want the lay people to see what we stand for, and invite them to adopt these very same principles in this great and life-long struggle we have all undertaken for the integrity of Catholic dogma, Catholic moral doctrine, Catholic liturgy, and Catholic discipline. 

O.K. We kind of think we get it. Hmmmm. Let's see: Tradzilla hopes moneyed laity'll understand his thinking and make his beliefs and practices theirs. Isn't that about right? (Nice fundraising ploy, we'll have to admit: Get 'em to buy in now so they'll pay through the nose later.) Let's then conduct a sincerity test on Big Don and his pals.  For the sake of brevity, the Readers will look at one principle he'd like us all to embrace, that of the first article 1* of the "Liturgical Directory":       

The general liturgical principle of the Institute is to preserve the traditional Roman liturgy. The Institute holds that the changes which were made to the Roman liturgy by the Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy, founded by Pope Pius XII in 1948, and headed by Annibale Bugnini, were transitory changes which were made in view of the Novus Ordo Missæ of 1969. Consequently the Institute shall reject any changes made at the suggestion of the aforesaid commission, even if promulgated by Pope Pius XII. The Institute holds that, although these changes were duly promulgated by Pope Pius XII, the acceptance of them in the light of the changes of Vatican II would be harmful to the stated end, namely the preservation of the traditional Roman liturgy. Nonetheless, the Institute does not regard the liturgical changes of Pope Pius XII as sinful to observe or attend, or as non-Catholic, but does regard them as a prelude to the ultimate changes of Vatican II, to which their author, Annible [sic!!] Bugnini, attests. 

In trying to make sense of all this head-spinning double talk, we concluded that Big Don and his "Institute" want the laity to have nothing to do with any of the poisoned fruits of the Bugnini reform of the liturgy, especially those mandated by the Second Vatican Council. Seems reasonable, doesn't it, given his radical sede position?

Nothing too tough to understand thus far.

So, then, if we've read between the Donster's lines correctly, the founders of the "Institute" must all be assumed to be model practitioners of the very principles they urge the laity to adopt.

Are we wrong? (No, we're not.)

But if the founders are paragons of Roman liturgical purity, why do we find on the MHT schedule for May 14, 2017, the calendar entry printed below?

Pontifical Sung Mass with Chaplains 10:30 A.M. C Bishop Sanborn C1 Rev. Mr. Dutertre C2 Fr. Fliess

This is clearly not a "Solemn Pontifical High Mass," as we see on May 25. It's looks and quacks like a Missa cantata, or Sung Mass, for a bishop. Now as many of you may know, a Sung Mass for bishops is an innovation sanctioned by Inter Oecumenici, the "First Instruction for the orderly carrying out of [Vatican II's] Constitution on the Liturgy," dated September 26, 1964 (bold emphasis ours):

 II.I.48.l, It is lawful, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests. (Licet Episcopis, pro necessitate, Missam in cantu more presbyterorum celebrare [AAS 56 {1964}, p. 888]).    

A colleague recollects that after Big Don first got his miter, he once said, during a visit to a cult chapel, that a bishop could only celebrate low or solemn pontifical Masses and smirkingly refused to use Dannie's invented pontifical Missa cantata. (The Wee One himself confessed it was all made up.) It may also be worth remembering that Tony Baloney, in his error-filled Work of Human Hands (p. 76), disapproved of the "fairly extensive" changes introduced by the "First Instruction." In his opinion, it "introduced many practices throughout the Mass that the 1951-62 legislation had already allowed or prescribed in one way or another, and instituted some new practices as well."

As matters stand, unless Inter Oecumenici is (a) unconnected with Bugnini's liturgical-reform efforts and (b) not one of the "ultimate changes of Vatican II,"** we'd like to know why three founders of the "Institute," to wit, Big Don, Squirmin' Herman, and the Gallic Melancholic (1) chose not to "preserve the traditional Roman liturgy" and (2) celebrated Mass in accordance with the "changes of Vatican II." In other words, is this the kind of double-tongued "integrity" we're all supposed to be fighting for along with Big Don and his clown crew?

Could it be that Tradzilla's two-faced policy is "do as I say, don't do as I do (because I do what I want)"? Or is it more subtle, say, "Whatever I do is right whenever I choose to do it, and don't you dare bring up my self-contradictions"? Or is it as basic as "I'm a flighty hypocrite who likes to do as his whims dictate"?

Choose whichever you think describes the Donster's motives best. Better yet, come up with your own catchphrase. Anything will work as long as it explains why Tradzilla flagrantly violates the principles he and the other founders "stand for."

That way, we'll all be reminded to

STARVE THE BEAST!

* For a reason we cannot fathom, in the pdf we downloaded, the "Liturgical Directory," apparently part of the "constitutions" Big Don claimed he's "been working on ... since 2004" (pesthouse news letter, May 2016, p. 2), has two — that's two— articles enumerated "1"! When we last checked pp. 6 and 7 of the online version [May 20, 2017, 11:24 AM, Ed.], the two #1's were still there as well as the misspelling of Bugnini's first name in the last sentence of the first #1 on p. 6. Maybe he'll correct both errors after he reads this post, as $GG did last week with the month of "YAG." This time, however, we've got a hard copy as well as a pdf in case the cult wants to play another fast one on PL with a straw commenter.

**But that condition cannot be true because Tony Baloney tells us (1) on p. 76 that "Consilium... issued ... the Instruction Inter Oecumenici" and (2) on p. 73 that "On 3 January 1964 ... Bugnini was ... informed that ... Montini ... had appointed him as Secretary of a new commission: 'Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de sacra liturgia.'" Then on p. 75, Checkie says, "As Secretary of Consilium, Bugnini was once again in the driver's seat for directing the course of liturgical reforms." (Citations from the 1st edition of Cheesy's dreadful book. If you don't trust the Cheeseball's facts, and we don't blame you, you can verify Bugnini's Consilium ["council"] appointment here.) At MHT, Bonehead Tone's shoddy Work of Human Hands is listed as one of the textbooks for the "seminary" course on the modern liturgy. Haven't Big Don, Squirmy, and the Gallic Melancholic read that magnum opus, as Dannie called it? "Consilium" is listed in the course description as one of the topics to be covered. It seems MHT has as little regard for WHH's content as PL has.