Pistrina Liturgica: PUTTING ON AIRS

Saturday, October 1, 2016

PUTTING ON AIRS

Good manners are made up of petty sacrifices. Emerson.

One of PL's more-than-passing interests lies in studying Tradistani primate behavior. Close observation often explains so much of the irrationality in the sede cults, such as forcing your kids to do without so that malformed, lowbred cult-master deadbeats can have (e.g., luxury trips abroad, new organs, spa vacations, restaurant splurges, expensive organic goodies from Whole Foods etc.).

To our mind, the most curious (and entertaining) activity occurs as beer-bellied  male cultlings, stuffed into fraying and yellowed wife-beater A-shirts, obsess over the honorific styles Your Excellency and His Excellency. From the frequency of utterance, it's their preferred means of showing submission to the counterfeit "bishops" who so amorally take advantage of them. (The self-demeaning etiquette enforced upon Nature's losers, we suppose.) Typically, you don't much hear the trench-mouthed hags of Tradistan cackling those phrases, since the considerably larger females generally prefer to use Bishop (vocalized "BEE-uh-ship," with a distinct Appalachian glide).

Plainly it's a guy thing.  The baseborn menfolk yearn to display their exquisite sense of propriety. When gathered together in their usual, sordid  habitat, all the macho sede swells outdo themselves with variations of these decorous niceties. They sound like a gaggle of jailbirds on parole, one-upping each other with prison-shop terminology like "cantilever,"  "espagnolette bolt,"  or "band and gudgeon hinges" in the thrilling, frisson-drenched minutes preceding a fistfight. If they're particularly impressed with their abject servitude to some half-witted, mitered charlatan, the larval "prelate" then metamorphoses into His Excellency the Most Reverend Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church First, Middle, and Last Name.

For the males of the species, Your and His Excellency function like the secret passwords they made up as urchin trash for admission to the rag-tag gangs they vainly formed to attract the attention of aloof girls from upper-class families, who despised them.  After entrance into unstable adulthood following a touch-and-go puberty, twanging "Your Excellency" signals to the opposite sex that the males continue to belong to a Lost-Boys' Club. As you study these hominids in situ, you'll marvel at how they simper with unmanned pride, running a coated tongue over lesion-cratered lips, as they brace themselves to articulate the magical eight syllables, "Yaw-ur EGGS-ul-LUH-un-SEE-ee" — the Open-Sesame to membership in the underworld we know as Tradistan.

Once the incantation has been breathlessly enunciated, for the briefest of instants, the creatures lay aside their customary hang-dog posture. They hold their misshapen noggins high above the innumerable, tiny cairns of rodent scat steaming under their splayed feet. Their booger-clogged snouts huff the cult center's rancid air like a tubercular mongrel circling an overflowing latrine. With their newly acquired savoir-faire, their characteristic hunchback's stoop straightens, though imperceptibly to the naked eye. Transfigured for a nanosecond, the "men" of Tradistan of a sudden feel worthy to be picked clean by the grinning impostor in shabby pontificals salivating to relieve them of their families' meager income.

A sight for any researcher to behold! (Just don't breathe too deeply.)

Well, now. PL doesn't want to rain on this odoriferous parade of sede masculine politesse, but we're afraid we must inform the Beta males they're wrong.  Mind you, the error doesn't arise from improper usage. By no means. To be pedantic, the oppressed womenfolk, crushed under a low-status mate's malign "authority," are wrong too: From the standpoint of strict protocol, well-mannered and properly schooled Catholics never address a real bishop as "Bishop So-and-so." The word isn't a title; it's an office. For American Catholics, Your Excellency is the mannerly way to address directly a legitimate member of the college of bishops, and His Excellency is the proper third-person honorific.

HOWEVER... sede "bishops" are decidedly NOT entitled to that style of office!

The truth is, it's not only a question of etiquette (or an example of antonomasia), but it's also a fundamental matter of ecclesiastical law. On December 31, 1930, in a decree issued by the Sacra Congregatio Caeremonialis, Pius XI conceded "the title of Most Reverend Excellency ... to archbishops and bishops too, whether residential or only titular."* Inasmuch as sede wandering bishops, flaming phonies without jurisdiction or a see, are neither residential nor titular, they have no legal right to the style. No one, Catholic or non-Catholic, may address or refer to them in this way. Additionally, since sede prelatasters do not exercise the episcopal office, they may never be addressed (even gauchely) as "Bishop X." It's like calling a quack "Physician Y."

As the rightful successor to the Roman Empire, the Church inherited the honorary title Excellentia (as well as Eminentia) to bestow on her loyal sons in accordance with her lights. (In imperial times, both honorifics were addressed to the powerful office of the praefectus praetorio [Berger's Encyc. Dict. of Roman Law]). But sede "bishops," who don't belong to the Church and have no commission from her, are barred from its use. In fact, properly speaking, they're laymen, a few of whom who may (illicitly) possess valid priestly and episcopal orders from a Catholic line. Also worthy of note is that even if the S. Congregatio Caeremonialis, the curial department that exercised jurisdiction over matters of rank and precedence, were still sitting, the sedes would have no standing to bring suit for the title since they're outside the Roman Catholic Church.

By now, it should be beyond discussion: Styling a sede "bishop" as Your or His Excellency isn't simply a buck-toothed, web-footed hick's social gaffe, like addressing the "judge" at a county-fair pie-eating contest as Your Honor. It's a serious transgression of propriety that exposes the offender for both the boor and the scofflaw he is.

Still, though, the practical question of good manners remains: How, exactly, does a servile cultie dude address one of these implausible canonical absurdities? In other words, what does a redneck Gertie guy or his bogtrotting Swampland wingman do if he's not allowed to grovel by means of Your Excellency or if usage rules and ecclesial reality forbid BEE-uh-ship?

We thought long and hard about that question. PL, in fact, solicited the input of blogger colleagues. To give these sede "bishops" their propers, the Readers weren't willing to sacrifice any of the positive laws of the Church or the canons of good form, large or small. No, not on your life! Not one whit. Our socially refined mothers and executive-level fathers reared us better. We wanted to get it right, by golly. So everybody had to put on his thinking cap. Finally, an inspired soul hit upon the perfect style for all Tradistan's grubbily striving episcopi vagantes:

YOUR EXCREMENCY

Use it often. You can't go wrong.

* Excellentiae Reverendissimae titulum...tribuendum quoque esse Archiepiscopis atque Episcopis, sive residentialibus sive titularibus tantum. For the full list of those entitled to the style, click here for the Latin-language decree published in the 1931 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, p. 22 . (N.B. In the link's OCR text, the page header reads "28.")

73 comments:

  1. I'd like to add that the title given in capital letters is the one prescribed for episcopi vagantes in Pope Praetensus XIII's Apostolic Constitution Ad Excrementum Decoris.
    I do remember that their disregard of the prescriptions for clerical dress (under their own premises, i.e., the state of sede vacante etc.) as well as other liturgical and ceremonial blunders had been commented upon. I'd wish to see a summary of those mishandled pretensions again.

    Also, I am sure the sede "bishops'" ventures in heraldry hasn't escaped the Reader's attention. Apart from all the finer details of this discipline, isn't it telling that the Pivster (otherwise renown for his sancta(?) simplicitas, Big Don and One Hand all timber their arms with miter and crosier - and for you heraldists out there, why does Sinborn's crosier point, to speak heraldicly, ad dexteram, lol? Besides being against Roman custom, neither Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer nor the four bishops they consecrated had any need for those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we had noticed the absence of the galero. Moreover, one of these "bishop's" armorial bearings are nothing but a reproduction of family that shares his surname. He must not know that arms are personal and the property of the bearer, whose rights should be respected. l. We know for certain that one of them must not have consulted the work of Bruno Heim, because the Argentine priest who produced the mess told us he "designed" (= appropriated) the achievement from the Internet. We also seriously doubt whether any of them consulted the legislation of Pius X.

      With all the money these jokes waste on luxury items, you'd think they would have paid a a professional heraldist to do the job right. But, then, a reputable firm probably would have turned down a commission from vagantes.

      All these misadventures in heraldry only serve to underscore the observation of Abp. Heim:

      "...the choice of prelatial arms is often a disastrous defiance of the rules of heraldry, if only as a breach of good taste."

      Delete
    2. I hope Bishop One Handed Danny has the proverbial one hand on his coat of arms (perhaps his family has ties to Ulster). Otherwise I'd be disappointed.

      Delete
    3. We've never seen the blazon, but in the tiny B&W image posted on the "Corner," we discern no hand device, but per pale azure, we think we can make out marks of cadency (LOL).

      A competent heraldist should refashion Wee Dan's arms to incorporate a sinister hand, couped at the wrist and apaumé. The motto should be changed from "Zelus Domus Tuae" (Ps. 68.10) to "Zelum Amarum Habet" (a modification of Jas. 3.14). The lion rampant per pale vert should be replaced by the Opinicus, "a fat serpent with eagles' s wings, a lion's legs, a long bill, pointed ears and an apology of a tail" (Brooke-Little).

      Delete
    4. The reason the sedes use the miter and crosier is simply because they reject Paul VI as Pope and his simplification of all things prelatical in the 1968 Ut Sive. Those who accept the V2 Popes likewise drop the heraldic extras. I had never noticed Don's crosier points the wrong way but at the ordination in June the photographs show him holding the crosier in the wrong direction, pointing towards himself.

      Delete
    5. As far as I know, Archbishop Lefebvre had never used miter and crosier in his arms even before the simplifications. Authorities such as Nainfa in fact advise against it, long before Paul VI ever came up.

      In regards to the crosier pointing the wrong way, I referred to his CoA ( https://www.truerestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Coat-of-Arms.jpg ). The curve of the crosier is pointed towards the left, as in the arms of an abbot.

      In regards to liturgical functions, I believe there is no authoritative decision for either way, but surely The Reader knows more on the subject.

      Delete
    6. In a 1956 letter to the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the principal heraldic officer in Scotland, the Vatican Secretariat of State affirmed:

      The ornaments (Crozier, Mitre, etc.) added to [episcopal] arms have not generally been the subject of particular legislation by the Holy See. They are the result of local traditions of various countries during various historical periods, and of particular social needs; but they were always tolerated as optional according to the uses of each nation. However, the displaying of the Mitre and Crozier at the upper corners of the Shield is not forbidden, although they are not in common use in the Roman Church and Court...The Holy See actually and formally admits, as ornaments for ecclesiastical coats-of-arms, only: the Hat surrounding the Shield, and the Cross standing behind the Shield....

      After the upcoming Lay Governance Conference, we may take the time to research the custom of the United States in the first half of the 20th century. Our working hypothesis is that American prelates did not use the crozier and miter on their armorial bearings, ensigned only by corded, tasseled galero and simple episcopal cross, the foot of which projected below the escutcheon. We think such research will show that One Hand and Big Don have little regard for tradition and propriety. It's a just a ruse for the lower classes

      Delete
    7. In Re: the Crozier.

      Aurelius Stehle, O.S.B., in his Manual of Episcopal Ceremonies (1948, 48.III), citing Favrin and Schober as authorities, writes:

      The pastoral staff-bearer holds the staff in his right hand with the end of his veil or cope, the curved part or crook turned toward the people. He gives the staff into the left hand of the bishop and takes care that when the bishop has received it, the curved part will be toward the people.

      Delete
    8. I read somewhere that the crosier is a sign of jurisdiction and episcopal office. If that is true, then these cult leaders have not right to it.

      Delete
    9. Thank you, PL and The Reader.
      In the meantime, I have looked it up in Morietti who says exactly the same, parte curva baculi ad populum versa etc.

      Delete
    10. That's Favrin's wording, too. The mentally challenged sedes ought to go on Google Books and query the phrase. They'll see how long it has been around. But, then, they don't really study the liturgy: they just play with it, so the fine details mean nothing.

      Delete
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dolan

    The wiki article has most of the blazon of the bishop SGG in color, altho the photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dolan#/media/File:Dolan01.jpg) is fairly low quality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This post is very uncharitable towards the people who attend sgg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As we've said before, our remarks are purely observational. If we observe someone stumbling out of a bar at 2:00 A.M., puking his guts out and say he's drunk, that's not uncharity. We're reporting a not unjustified inference.

      However, if you disagree, don't fret. The Gerties (and other Tradistanis) are so depraved that our post probably gives them more credit than they deserve.

      Delete
  4. I'm actually not sure why SGG and MHT parishioners read this. They don't seem to want to accept the truth about their parish and who they support? It seems to me that their attempts to defend the cult leaders are lacking, so it definitely can't be to defend them. They must have questions or they wouldn't seek the truth. They find it, but can't accept it due to being brainwashed that their leaders can do no wrong? Yet, they keep coming back for more and more info on their cults.

    From reading the comments, there are people from Sgg, mht, OLQOM, etc. who are still attending, but they are not happy. So, why not just leave? Especially a place like SGG who has so many options.

    Is it family ties, brainwashing, proximity, loyalty to the leaders? What? It must be something that ties these people? I don't think they are stupid, just brainwashed. Of course, them giving hard earned money to let these men squander it seems like a stupid choice, but it is somewhat a mandatory and obligatory decision that the cult makes for you. It's almost as though it is your fault that you aren't giving them enough money for new priests, not adequate enough organs, not adequate enough space for their seminarians, a heating issue, a foundation issue, mice and rodents running around, them having to beg you for money, etc. Maybe it is a guilt thing? Who knows!

    I just wish people would look at the scandals involved at both of these places and see that the leaders are not what they present themself to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've touched upon an important point: these poor people may be trying to work up the courage to get out from under these men's sway.

      Delete
    2. I don’t claim to be the brightest candle in the traddie chapel vigil light stand, (nor do I really want to be such in matters traddie) so thanks P L for the research and information on these sede bishops and the correct form of addressing them. (Just as they create and invent, so too could I create or invent forms of address for them but alas, you beat me to it!)

      Some most definitely, perhaps many trads, love all of this pretentiousness and the pontifical shows and the bowing, ring kissing, and scraping and whatever other actions & treatment they feel these bishops are entitled to. In a sense, at least some of these bishops are earning their keep by their repeat performances demanded by their loyal patrons and fans. Personally I do not believe these men to be real bishops and refused to kiss any of their rings, hoping at least their priesthood was valid. Praying a Rosary or two was the better option than falsely honoring them in such a fashion.

      I can’t speak for everyone or for Roman Catholic practices & discipline throughout the ages, but, throughout the ages, the “average” Roman Catholic “probably” had direct contact with a bishop perhaps once in his life, and that would’ve been at Confirmation. Yes, some bishops were attached to a parish church and perhaps said frequent daily public Masses, but on the big day each week, Sunday, wouldn’t they have been traveling throughout their diocese for Confirmations or other special occasions demanded of particular parishes.

      I know some creep will say that prior to Vatican II all parishes had a resident bishop, including the remote mission territories that had less than a dozen members, so, I will beat you to the punch. Perhaps find another traddie site to play with your ignorance.

      The very idea let alone concept of a bishop hanging around his “parish” all of the time being available to everyone for ring kissing and holy talk wasn’t a common occurrence, so pontifical etiquette wasn’t an issue for the average bloke. These sede bishops are grooving (I use that term rather than the one I should use for fear of offending someone) on all of this attention. And when you think of it, most ‘had” themselves made bishops, by conning and manipulating the bishop who consecrated them. (It can be assumed there was money involved for these consecrations.) Many of these cultlings are ignorant of proper address and need to read this article.

      Delete
    3. Our position exactly. And in the old days, if you belonged to a large diocese, if you ever sighted a bishop in every-day circumstance, it was probably the auxiliary.

      These trad "bishops" are self-selected and go through no vetting process. to be of.

      Delete
  5. After Messrs Salza and Siscoe commenced with a controlled demolition of the sedevacantist case, I've noticed an infestation of Cedaka-ite sedes on forums, for example the Suspice Domine forum (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php). I searched the content of one of their longer posts, and found it was plagiarised from a sede website. Messrs Salza and Siscoe have demolished Fr Cedeka non sequitur of an arguement against the validity of Conciliar Episcopal Orders (and also listed a mix of genuine scholars and clear thinking sedes). Bishop Danny Dolan might be one handed in the sense of his problematic ordination, but Fr Checkie is the real one handed SGG man, whenever real scholars deign to flatten his bad arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Checkie can protest all he wants: S & S have skewered him thoroughly.

      Delete
  6. My belief is that these men know they are not true bishops, so they try to cover-up this with formalities, over-the-top ceremonies, and pompous attitudes. They all seem to lack humility. Why wouldn't they be the example of humility, such as Christ washing the feet of his apostles, instead of acting like pompous jerks obsessed with money and power?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guess they're compensating for all their deficiencies, canonical, intellectual, and social.

      Delete
  7. It's something to behold how the Suspice Domine forum has been invaded by sedes. I argued with them for a bit, with long detailed posts, but now just pick on a point, Fr Checkie style. That's one good idea this lazy priest had.

    They seems to have a pretentious style, although their limited knowhow means they resort to plagiarism more than once. Easily caught as they're too bloody lazy to rephrase. Maybe they don't really understand what they type out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's important to remember that it is not just the "sede" bishops, but all "trad" bishops, SSPX, Resistance, SSPV, etc., that all lack any commission from the Church, and by that fact are equivalent to laymen.

    They hold no office, no title, and have absolutely no status in the Church. They have no power to rule, to dispense, to erect parishes, to censure, etc. These bishops do not continue the Apostolic Succession, and from that fact are not successors of the Apostles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene is absolutely correct in every detail. They are not members of the universal episcopate, which is the successor to the apostolic college. They have no legitimation of office and authority. They are laymen, some of whom may have valid but illicit orders. Nevertheless, those orders to not entitle them to the rights or status of Roman Catholic clergy. They are odious to God.

      Delete
    2. It could happen that the SSPX will gain that commission, and +Fellay is already accorded a measure of recognition in respect of ordinations (although the evidence for that is a bit uncertain). What might be relevant here was how cautious +Lefebvre was, seeking diocesan permission and incardination as long as it proved possible as much as possible (a decent few SSPX priests still have diocesan incardination, and some lucky younger priests), keeping to the last stable iteration of the Tridentine missal, and for a few years keeping to the 'transitional missal' of 1964 even if some disliked the lack of 'Júdica Me' or which was dropped in '64 like the Last Gospel. Contrast that with Fr Cekada dumping the Leonine prayers for 'reasons,' and many other sede enormities. A bit arrogant of them.

      Delete
    3. There's much to be said for your thesis. We're willing to consider the proposition that the SSPX may have preserved the last remnant of legitimacy. Perhaps that's why Tradzilla is so ardently opposed to them.

      Delete
    4. Does CMRI, sspv, and Neville's group write and do lectures against the sspx and others as much as Cekada and Sanborn?

      Delete
    5. The Long-Island Jellyfish doesn't have a group. He's owned by Tradzilla. From what we've seen, the SSPV and the awful CMRI keep a low profile, although the SSPV are certainly not fans of SSPX.

      Delete
  9. This is a case of leaders where "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    These men are given absolute power over their parish and people, sometimes not even following Catholic teaching. Giving them all this power with no oversight is wrong. There is no accountability of their actions or their finances. Their showcases of ceremonies, proper ceremonial attire, etc., is to create a mask and sense of entitlement to this respect they think they have earned. It's all about the show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Admitting that hindsight is always 20/20, the laity should never have given these men such absolute control. Without an overall structure for supervision and accountability, it was bound to descend to the catastrophe we have today.

      Nevertheless, it's still not too late. If the laity withholds all financial support, these "clergy" will either have to retire or submit to a lay governance model. The older ones will no doubt quit, but the younger crowd, which hasn't yet amassed a retirement fund and has no training for a real-world job, will go along with the new arrangement. That's why we say,
      "STARVE THE BEAST."

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. You're lucky to be so far away from the American disaster!

      Delete
  11. The SSPV/Fr Jenkins Youtube channel (WCBOhio) will at times see Fr Jenkins attack Pope Francis (in, say, the video on a children's book authored by Pope Francis or on Amoris Laetitia), but nary a word on the SSPX (as far as I can tell). It carried videos of old programs or conferences involving some present-day members of the SGG/MHT crew. Fr Jenkins seems far more prudent than them. Now there are some who consider the SSPV a cult or that it possesses some of those characteristics, but who am I to judge? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr. Jenkins was always the smartest of the whole group, which may account for SGG's animosity. He doesn't need to attack the SSPX because they really can't compete with him. But Gertie and Swampland cult masters have to worry that SSPX would take their membership away if they couldn't scare them into staying put.

      Delete
    2. It appears that sgg and mht/cult have always used scare tactics or a holier art thou attitude that keeps their people put. Mht, in particular, believes sgg, cmri, sspv, and sspx are very liberal (including the people who attend these places.). While they are smart enough not to say it in a sermon, they will personally tell people to avoid them.

      Did I say sgg? Yes, sgg also is included in chapels to avoid, despite their connections. There appears to be a great deal of back biting going on between these places. My guess is that is why the alliance of cmri and sgg is taking place. Eventually, Sanborn will have enough of his own trusted priests to teach at his seminary and not need the extra help or expense that Cekada brings for his weekly teaching. He has how many now? 5 of his own on his teaching staff?

      Delete
    3. There has always been tension between the $GG and MHT kingpins, and we agree that soon MHT will cut ties with the Checkster, citing his illness as the excuse. In reality, the Clone wants nothing to do with him. Reports say that the Clone is now there full-time, so there's no need at all for Checkie and all his baggage. BTW, someone once told us that $GG pays Cheesy's airfare to the Swamp.

      Delete
    4. Fr.Jenkins has a video discrediting Fr.Schmitberger from SSPX on YouTube.
      Sorry if I spelled the SSPX priest' name wrong.(I don't claim to be smart)
      I attend a sedevacantist chapel and am very content.(its not anyone you all know)
      Yes he is a valid priest.(Thuc line)
      Go ahead say what you want it's cool.
      Have a blessed day.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The sedes can be a bitchy lot.

    and on another topic:

    I hope the Readers don't mind this example of sedes accusing Messrs Salza and Siscoe selectively editing a text. The evidence offering is a different text (similar subject) by a different author. Cardinal Catejan authored the book S&S quote from, while Fr Ballerini wrote what the sede thought was some sort of slam dunk.

    Maybe the Readers might want to delete it as some sede argumentation really is cancerous, but it is a neat example of how they roll.

    http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15539.msg336427#msg336427

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. We'll take a look at it.

      Delete
    2. I did confuse the page for the quote (doh), but the OP remains wrong. The highlighted pieces, most notably 'no declaration or sentence of anyone whosoever is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church' were not cut. Calumny learned from Fr Tony.

      Delete
    3. Your intellectual honesty is refreshing. We'd never see that from the cult masters, who defend their errors even after they've been corrected.

      On a different tack, we noticed that the forum members have collected additional Latin documentation. (Unfortunately, the transcription is full of errors.) Wouldn't it be great if, instead of giving money to the nutty "bishop"-led cults, traddies would create a fund for research and translation of all the relevant primary source material in this matter? The fruits of the project could then be published for all to use. The book would contain both the original Latin and an en face translation. The fully annotated translation would be done by a team to assure accuracy. It wouldn't be cheap, but it would be a great service to all sides. $1.75 million spent on this endeavor would be of far greater value than giving it to MHT for another wasteful building project.

      Delete
  14. Hey Readers,

    Have any of you ever witnessed to the Jewish and Protestant girl who posted in the last post? Ever tried to convert them?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quite frankly, no, because we wouldn't know where to send them for proper instruction. The NO is out as well as the cult sedes. The kids are young, so we don't want to ruin them forever by a wrong referral. We don't know where to find Catholicism today. It's not in the cults and not with Bergoglio. As for the rest, we're not sure enough to risk their souls.

    As for "witnessing," you must realize that we're we're senior citizens. I our day, that was Protestant language, so we can't relate to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't know where it is then what to do believe? How can you say you're a Catholic? But that is an impossibility, to refrain from proving the truth of Catholicism or wanting to convert others because of the crisis. It would imply that Catholicism could cease to be true for a moment, which is impossible.

      You could tell them to read everything up till Vatican II, to read the Roman catechism and papal encyclicals for example. You could also say that all this has been prophesied, which actually makes the case for Catholicism even stronger than ever. 2 Thessalonians? You could suggest sedevacantism as an explanation without actually sending them to them.

      I didn't know that about "witnessing," by the way; I have seen other traditionalists use the term and thought it was traditional.

      Delete
    2. By no means does it imply that Catholicism is untrue. However, to learn the truths of the Catholic faith well requires active instruction from mature, competent Catholics — something these young people won't find among the sede cultists, who make it up as they go along, or in he modernist NO. Furthermore, asking adolescents with no previous contact with the faith to read unguided the encyclicals or the Roman Catechism and then convert is, in our view, naïve and possibly dangerous. Our greatest fear would be for them to actually see the sede cultists in action, where the people glare at any newcomer and the malformed "clergy" are obsessed with inanities: one look and they would reject everything they had been taught. Can you imagine the reaction of an intelligent young person new to the faith if they heard one of Big Don's sermons or read Dannie's "Corner" last Sunday where he wrote: "Fr. McKenna tells me he read that cats kill far more creatures than we realize (only 25% of the carcasses make it to the step), sometimes just for fun"? They'd run for their lives!

      As for our recommending SVism, you've got us all wrong. As we've said many times, we're "aliquid pravists." For us, anyone — SVer, R-'n'-Rer, conservative Novus Cordite, or traditionalist of any stripe — who acknowledges that something is wrong with the current Vatican Establishment is our brother or sister, as long as they don't belong to a "bishop"-led cult. Hence another reason for our restraint: To tell a neophyte who hasn't reached adulthood that something is wrong with the Church visible might turn them against the faith for life and render them unreceptive in the future if moved by grace to convert.

      Yes, we've seen the term "witnessing" among today's traditionalists, many of whom are converts from Protestantism and have brought in its terminology. In fact, one thing that has struck us old folks is how similar traddies' language and behavior are to that of Protestant evangelicals.

      Delete
    3. One notable sede is Gerry Matatic (http://gerrymatatics.org/) who was Protestant preacher, so there is a degree of commonality, beyond things like recourse to 'private judgement.' I wonder if his course on TOFP the source of sudden appearance of a flood of sedes in some Traditional forums.

      Delete
    4. The evangelical element in traddie-ism is something to be concerned about.

      Delete
    5. These people could be examples of charity in order to spead the faith, but they lack even that. In the past, the majority of saints won over converts or strengthened the faithful by their actions and love of their faith. They didn't win them over by telling their congregations that everyone except them are going to hell and to shield yourself from all who do not go to your church, like the cults you discuss.

      Delete
    6. What, evangelizing and making converts has been suspended by God since Vatican 2? No one at all should try to convert anyone? What happened with everyone being responsible for the souls God puts in one's path?

      That's one thing. And what if anyone were to ask you what religion you belong to? Just say "Catholic" and if any additional questions are asked, say that you have nothing else to say?

      Thirdly, if you believe all this, then you have no business endorsing S&S's book, because they may be wrong as well (personally I believe they are dead wrong about the anti-SV things they say); you would have to keep silent about the whole affair, to be consistent with what you said.

      I have had many conversations with non-Catholics who criticize the abominations that have been going on since V2, and to me there is no better explanation than the SV one: tell them all this is going on because they're all heretics and not Catholics or inside the Church and that a true Pope would never do such things. It actually makes sense to them because, in truth, SV does make sense, more than r&r.

      Delete
    7. It is one thing to assert the truth of a matter and another to endeavor to change someone else's mind. Affirmation of a truth is a separate act from persuasion. Thus we can applaud S & S's polemical effort and embrace publicly the immemorial truths of the Catholic faith and then leave it up to others to make their own decision. In the question of the faith, the assent of the hearer requires grace, and in the matter of S & S, it requires an unbiased, educated mind capable of following their argument. If either of these elements is missing, there's nothing we can do to supply the deficit.

      You should know that in spite of our admiration for the work of S&S, we do not entirely reject SVism as a hypothesis to explain the on-going ecclesial crisis. The problem is that Cekada has been an incompetent champion of that hypothesis, and his intemperate pen finally provoked his betters into impeaching his position. As we've written before, SVism deserves a better trained and smarter defender to make its case. That won't make it any less of a hypothesis, but it will elevate the discussion. But until that happens, everyone with intellectual integrity should now view the R-'n'-R hypothesis as privileged.

      Delete
    8. So you have never actively tried to persuade anyone from leaving the Novus Ordo or the New Mass?

      Delete
    9. We give people our reasons for rejecting the New Mass and we explain why we believe that something is very wrong in Rome. If we have done a good job and if they receive the grace, they will assent and leave.

      Delete
    10. By saying the Catholic faith is missing in action is calling Jesus Christ a liar.
      By saying we must stay at home is calling Jesus Christ a liar.
      'I will be with you till the end of time.'
      One church one faith one Lord one Baptism.
      Without one it all falls apart and to say we can exist without one is calling Jesus Christ a liar.(Faith Church Lord Baptism)
      Yes I know about Japan's 200 year run without clergy.
      However that was one country not the entire World.

      Delete
  16. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2265-why-traditionalists-are-not-afraid-of-sedevacantism

    Brian McCall has called out Fr Cedaka in the Remnant. The topic is Messrs Salza and Siscoe's book, but the unpriestly language of the SGG kingpin is the focus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks you for posting the link. We read the review when it came out and thought it hit the nail on the head. One of the best observations is the following:

      "Why would Father Cekada feel the need to attack a book he has not even read yet (other than a preface posted online)? Must he launch this preemptive strike because he fears the unknown text might actually refute his position?"

      S&S are right: It's all over for the Cheeseball.

      Delete
    2. S&S neatly show (chapters 17 and 18) that sedes objections to the Rites of Paul VI for ordination and consecration are not strong. Ordinations differ in only ut/so that, and the episcopal Rite is that of St Hippolytus, long used by Maronites and Copt Catholics. There are many things that can be said against V2, but sedes really have to twist things in order to somehow contend that apostolicity was broken. Perhaps it would have been better not to fix what wasn't broken, but they were changed, and they are reasonably fit for purpose.

      Delete
    3. The sedes needed a bogeyman to scare the faithful, so they grasped at anything that sounded good. The fact is, these sub-educated clowns are not scholars, theologians, or historians, so their censures are not to be taken seriously. We'll wait for somebody with real training before we buy their snake oil, which is not to say they couldn't be right. They just don't have the "cred" for us to take the bait so easily. The jury is still out.

      Delete
    4. You should really read the last few months of work done by Fr. Kramer, he's putting Siscoe and Salza to bed. If you get a Facebook account, friend him, he has been putting all of his work up on there, and makes himself available for questions.

      Btw, Fr. Kramer was trained at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, aka the Angelicum. He was trained by some of the last holdouts among the pre-Vatican II minded professors, making him one of the last well trained and orthodox theologians on earth.

      I would strongly urge you to read his analyisis of their writings, before giving them any more serious consideration.

      Delete
    5. Will do. But does he back that idiot Checkie?

      Delete
    6. They run in different circles, I highly doubt they kmow each other.

      Fr. Kramer was a close friend and associate of the late Fr. NIcholas Gruner, and spent most of the last few decades writing for the publications of the Fatima Center located in Fort Erie, Ontario.

      Delete
    7. Good! We can't imagine a graduate of the Angelicum associating with the likes of malformed Checkie.

      BTW, we friended him, as you so kindly suggested.

      Delete
    8. I do agree with Gene's assertion. A more intelligent approach to John of St. Thomas papa deponendus theory and possibly even a synthesis with the Bellarminian opinion can be read on this blog: https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/deposing-a-pope-dont-try-this-at-home-part-one-the-possibility/

      I've also followed your advise to friend Fr. Kramer. Thanks for the tip.

      Delete
    9. Messrs Salza and Siscoe seem to have a major bit of beef with Fr Kramer now.

      Delete
    10. The problem I see with Fr Kramer's 'resignationist' position is somewhat like the objection to the sedevacantist thesis generally. No layman, no priest, no bishop, no archbishop (+Lefebvre expressed doubts about Paul VI, the Council and New Mass) has the right to judge the Pope a heretic, or perhaps at all. The only exception would arise, as even Innocent III ruled, was where the Pope had sinned greviously against the Faith. Even the jury would be a Council presided over by a future Pope issuing a ruling, or some form of jury of that standing (but the late Medieval Conciliar controversy suggests that is no neat solution as one body of Cardinals can rule differently from another). Now he can be held guilty of error, say when Pope Honorius was anathemised by the Sixth Council of Constantinople, a ruling confirmed by Leo II and a synod at Toledo convoked in his name, who took take to note that the compromise with the Monothelites was not proclaimed ex cathedra. Popes Vigilius and Pelagius provoked the Three Chapters schism in Italy by a similar level of offence, not proclaiming heresy, but weakly supporting compromise with it. The solution to the present mess will need nothing short of divine intervention.

      Delete
    11. Perhaps so, but doesn't divine intervention militate against God's economy? In other words, would it not be more probable that a juridical solution might prevail along the lines of a declaration of deposition by the Church, as some authors opine?

      Delete
    12. The rite of St.Hipolytus was never used in the Roman Catholic church.
      He was outside the church during the time he used those rites.(I know he died reunited and inside the church)
      Its never been proven those rites were used at any point in the roman Catholic church.
      Google 'Comparative religions study new rite of holy orders for the Roman Catholic church.'
      Its a very good place to start.

      Delete
  17. I suspect that you ladies and gentlemen would have something in common with the priestless old believers of the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Japanese Christians. I also have in mind the remark of Cardinal Consalvi to Napoleon when I think of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the Japanese Christians did last centuries without priests. It might be something Catholics will have to face, but the Japanese were not left with a confused Faith, like now.

      Delete
  18. The Church will never be lacking its authorized and commissioned pastors, although they may get much more difficult to find.

    ReplyDelete