Saturday, September 10, 2016

MIDDLE-CRASS VALUES


Where it is the duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat. Morley

PL's recent posts about $GG "clergy's" linguistic shortcomings set off a landslide of emails. One correspondent perplexedly asked why these poorly educated "clerical" vipers celebrate the Latin liturgy at all, when they obviously don't know the language in which it's written. Wouldn't every day be a bitter reminder of personal inadequacy, she asked? Wouldn't they live in dread of the kind of exposure they're getting from Pistrina. Wouldn't it be psychologically less stressful not to have to fake it all the time? Wouldn't they be afraid if people started to scrutinize them more closely? And finally, why didn't Dannie and Checkie get into another line of business years ago?

Good, solid questions all.

But the simple answer to each one is: not if there's money to be made, and an easy life to be enjoyed.

Dollars for luxury travel and upscale restaurants go a long way toward pumping up deflated self-esteem. A steady income guaranteed by oafish cultlings shields these unlettered men of the cloth from the effects of outsiders' criticism. A grifter's shallow personality makes winging it exciting, especially when not much effort is needed to dupe the rubes who foot the bill for all the bling. An unchecked effrontery to invent willy-nilly new mortal sins will criminalize any sincere attempt to probe too deeply, so victims will generally keep their trembling lips closed.

Their secret has been to pick the right kind of suckers and then give 'em what their shallow hearts want. Do that, and you really don't need more than a few Latin tags to keep the marks bamboozled.  Recruiting the suckers is the easy part. First, just find the dumbest, least educated, amoral chumps out there. Next growl that only you can save their souls, provided they're prepared to pay and pay and pay, while simultaneously refusing to believe any hard evidence of your unfitness.

But giving the saps what they want takes a more psychological insight than finding them. Notwithstanding the difficulty, the clerical creeps are up to the challenge. It's true they may be lacking the lit(t)erae humaniores, but prudentia carnis they possess in overabundance. Their Latin knowledge is less than a moron's, but they're geniuses at divining on which side of the bread the butter is spread.

Here's their million-dollar intuition: The lay fortune's fools, who've been on the losing end of life from conception, secretly yearn to be mediocre. Therefore, what they ardently desire is not authentic, spiritually uplifting Catholicism under the benign guidance of well-trained, professional clergy, but in its place they want "bourgeois pseudo-Catholicism."

In that sham religion, the emphasis is on materialism (expensive vestments, new organs, deluxe living quarters, luxury spa vacations in the chic desert Southwest). Everything is obsessively commercialized ($GGResources, the big $30-K plan), and no opportunity is lost to monetize the sacred ($GG's Purgatorian $ociety, $t. Christopher for Your Car, All $ouls' Day envelopes). However, "bourgeois pseudo-Catholicism" can't stop at the grubby fascination with amassing goodies and pocketing big bucks. If it did, even the lowlife losers would eventually recognize the snakes they'd let into their lives.

So to keep the suckers in their place, the slithery, vulgarian "clergy" model aspirational bourgeois norms of behavior. Frustrated social climbers without breeding stuck forever at the soiled bottom of society's Everest, the "clergy" awkwardly affect superficial speech patterns and faux-upperclass attitudes learned from the boob tube (Dannie's high-mannerist language, Checkie's pitiable attempts to appear refined, fancy French restaurants for a meat-'n'-tater-lovin' Big Don).

Since they lack real culture (bad Latin, gross errors of fact, mispronunciations like Uneven-Steven's  "impass-say" for impasse, a morbid predilection for fast food), these "clergy" must compensate, or risk an angry pelting from the peanut gallery they call "the faithful." Hence, they're relentless self-promoters who pass off their enormous failures as world-class achievements (Tony Baloney's adolescent, error-pocked WHH as "magnum opus"). It's the only way to maintain the dominance necessary to exact the reflexive, mindless conformity that compels laymen to impoverish their wretched families in order to bestow on these social outcasts the lavish life their hardscrabble backgrounds would have denied them.

To suppress questions before they surface, they coat everything with a saccharine veneer of the kind of low sentimentality that's repugnant to the Catholic culture of the past. Baby Bunnies, pretty pansies, contented kitties, and mistry-eyed meteorological musings form the major topics of Dannie's weekly messages. Far more philistine (and borderline irreverent) is the mawkish characterization of the Mother of God: it sounds as though the cult masters learned their Mariology from a backward maiden-aunt who never reached the fourth grade. Nonetheless, while their cloyingly emotional approach obscures the central rôle of Mary in dogmatic ecclesiology, it's a useful means of stifling nagging doubts about the "clergy's" self-serving motives: Suckers will always succumb to the siren song of bourgeois schmaltz.

So, there in a nutshell is the answer to our correspondent's question about why the Latin-challenged $GG "clerical" louts bother with Latin at all. A teeny, weeny bit will get them into the fly-blown gardens of the witless, who are easy pickings for uneducated but cunning ecclesiastical entrepreneurs with nothing to offer in the way of true religion. But what these serpents do have to hiss about is more than enough to persuade an upwardly mobile, incurious lumpen proletariat to part with its cash and set its soul at risk.

113 comments:

  1. Boy if this didn't hit the nail right on the head, I don't know what will.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A person might need to read other PL posts on the horror that is the $GG 'school' and how WHH is something of a fraud or imposture, but this post tells us why certain things Floridian and one-handed need to be avoided. God Bless the editors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks much. Everyone must stay away from the cults.

      Delete
  3. In the Bishop's Corner, Dan reports that a group of devout apparitionists came to Mass there for the annual apparition of the BVM in West Chester. Does anyone know anything about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, what they’ll see probably depends upon what they’re smoking at the time! I can’t believe Dannie would even MENTION such a HOAX like that – especially now, with today’s article dealing with SNAKE OIL!!!

      Delete
  4. Just some more $nake Oil being sold.

    "If at first you do not succeed, try, try, try again."

    Well, when all else fails let's bring in the MYSTICS.

    Will these CONS stop at nothing? What will be the next trick, the Ouija Board?

    You cannot starve these beasts, you have to put them to the STAKE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're the walking dead, that's for sure.

      Delete
    2. Yikes don't hold back let it all out! You've hit everything these imposter's have perpetrated on the Idiots who keep supporting them. Big Don's seminary is more like a carnival that produces clowns for priests who can barely put together a sermon for Sunday or say a true Roman Catholic Mass. Let's not even get into the poor girls who are children NUNS. Let's not mention what kind of education they have received at the seminary or the school that taught these poor children now (Priests and NUNS). The Three Ring Masters carnival will roll on because of the desperate useful Idiots who support their Slight of hand version of the True Catholic Faith. STARVE THE BEAST

      Delete
  5. I searched & found that "Bp" Ramolla has opened up yet another new chapel in the Cincy area in Mason! He's named it Our Lady of Victory & he's really into the BVM. You don't suppose -----???? btw how many chapels does that make that's he's started? This story gets stranger by the minute

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we know of it. What a joke! But he'll be there as long as the idiots support him.

      Delete
  6. The Readers believe God Himself is a misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very weird, off-topic, and completely baseless comment, but we'll reply:

      You've got us mistaken: unlike the culties, we don't believe any cult master is God. Therefore, if you're looking for Misogyny, USA, head for a Tradistani cult center. (Or maybe you're already at one.)

      Delete
    2. You call those Catholics who still believe that women should cover up and dress according to pre-V2 standards, misogynists, when the fact is that this is the way it has been all throughout history: women have always been covered.

      Delete
    3. I think they are misogynists, and it's not due to them asking women to cover-up and confirm to modesty standards. It's their attitude toward women in general, and it is very apparent to anyone who is a non-cultist.

      Delete
    4. 6:31 PM

      When you made your sweeping assertion "all throughout history," were you referring to all cultures and all eras and all parts of the world? If so, you need to attend an anthropology class. Also, we assume your preference would be that women wear burqas.

      7:39 PM

      We agree with you. The cults' misogyny is much deeper that keeping women wrapped in pioneer dresses and hijabs.

      Delete
    5. When you made your sweeping assertion "all throughout history," were you referring to all cultures and all eras and all parts of the world?

      Of course not, but to the history of the ones with the true cult and knowledge of God, from Adam and Eve, to Abraham, Moses, the entire history of the Church down through to the 50's etc.

      The ones who were running around naked or barely clothed were savages and cultures without knowledge of the true God.

      Also, we assume your preference would be that women wear burqas.

      No, just dresses and skirts, like it has been for centuries.

      What's the bid deal anyway? Men have been covered throughout history as well too. Before Vatican 2, they didnt wear sleeveless shirts or very short shorts either, so it's not like men don't observe any standards, but only women, no.

      Delete
    6. These places are not true Catholic institutions.....PERIOD.

      Just because they can give you a few examples of Catholic traditions/expectations over time, it does not make them examples of living the true faith. Number one: they lack charity. Number 2: there is an obvious hatred toward women. Number 3: they are aligning their own pocketbooks and living on the sacrifices of others. Number 4. I have never heard these men harp on men's dress, but they do women's. Number 5: some of the things said in their sermons/newsletters are downright disgusting and don't deserve discussing in the Church or to be seen by teenagers or young children. They are scandalizing the youth of their congregations. Talks about beastality, homosexuality, etc. do not belong in a church setting. So, maybe instead of a woman's lack of covering her elbow or ankle, they should be more worried about how they have been scandalizing so many by their pride, immoral suggestions, and spending the Church's funds so frivolously.

      Delete
    7. 2:24 AM

      Then why don't pants constitute proper covering up for women. There's no (or very little) flesh exposed, where with dresses and skirts there's a lot of leg and ankle action, and maybe even more .

      Delete
    8. I see that my last comment was deleted.

      Why?

      Delete
    9. NO one here deleted your remark. If we had, there would have been a message that the comment was deleted by the administrator.

      Delete
    10. Response to The Reader September 13, 2016 at 3:18 AM you write:
      "Then why don't pants constitute proper covering up for women. “

      Bravo Reader! What is the big deal on women wearing slacks anyway? On several occasions, years ago, I had no choice but to help the cleaning ladies at my chapel doing their sacristy and sanctuary work. While up on step ladders or hoisting stuff up or down on the altar, and in the course of various rigorous cleaning activities, I inadvertently saw a few sights I will spare you the details. And these sights were from women wearing the typical granny style skirts and dresses, you know, the Little House on the Prairie get ups, sans Michael Landon of course! Wearing slacks would’ve been more modest and spared these women embarrassment. (Perhaps keeping women in a constant state of embarrassment is intended to keep them in their place?)

      I’ve known several trad women who were born with deformities of their legs, or due to medical conditions, developed serious deformities. They did not cause the deformities, they did not will it, they did not intend to be born this way, they weren’t looking for attention. Wearing loose fitting slacks at their traddie churches would’ve not only been a blessing for them but would’ve possibly prevented the many ignorant, ill bred and ill mannered cretins in their respective chapels the opportunity to gawk and stare at their poor legs. I still can’t believe the cruelty and sadism of some trads. One woman, born with deformities, had terrible issues walking and couldn’t bend her knees. She did indeed wear quite baggy slacks and, since she couldn’t kneel, had to stand for Holy Communion. Many of the people of her chapel complained to the priest in charge, and he confronted her husband and demanded she appear at Mass in a dress. These people didn’t realize the show they would’ve gotten had she worn a dress; I will spare you the details.

      Behind her back, of course, she was accused of being a feminist because she wore slacks. Why would a feminist even bother attending a trad chapel? Because her husband forces her to? A feminist being forced by a man to attend a pre Vatican II chapel that stands for much of what she is opposed to? Others said that because she would stand for Communion she didn’t believe in the Real Presence.

      Where is there common sense, common decency, and some charity in these places? These women are expected to put on a freak show for the benefit of the congregation?


      Delete
    11. The unfathomable cruelty you narrated is a direct result of the "clergy's" vicious narrow-mindedness. They foment all the sniping and spying. Had that "priest" been properly trained and pastorally disposed, he would have long before learned of the woman's misfortune. And when some morons came to complain, he would have sent them home with a stern admonition to mind their freaking business and consider submitting their un-Christian intervention to the tribunal of penance. But, of course, he wasn't well trained, and so he allowed himself to be manipulated by nasty chapel busybodies.

      We'll wager if that poor soul did comply with their uncharitable demands, they'd be incensed she dared to flaunt her deformity and would have run her out of the place for "causing scandal." And the "priest" would have praised them for their Catholic action.

      The trad movement won't get any better until it gets rid of idiot "clergy" like the one you've just mentioned. (That, BTW, is the majority.)


      Delete
    12. "I’ve known several trad women who were born with deformities of their legs, or due to medical conditions, developed serious deformities. They did not cause the deformities, they did not will it, they did not intend to be born this way, they weren’t looking for attention. Wearing loose fitting slacks at their traddie churches would’ve not only been a blessing (from God?!) for them"

      I've seen this excuse presented also at "Tradition in Action"--to conceal a brace, someone wanted to wear pants. I wonder if men might present the argument also: I am overweight due to thyroid disease and to spare all the gross sight of my thighs and hind quarters I need to wear a dress. "I would really like to wear pants to church, but since I broke my leg, the size of my cast necessitates I wear a dress because I don't want to ruin my one dress suit."

      Really, what kind of idiocy is this? Surely the women should just lengthen their skirts [which is quite easily done today--far easier to find a short (above the knee) dress or a floor length dress than it is to find a street-length (if you do find the proper length than has a plunging neck or backline and no sleeves)] if they are trying to hide their legs. Victorians hid all legs w/ a tablecloth (not by putting pants on them!). What did deformed women do before 1965? Should those w/facial deformities wear a bag over their head to bless mass attendees?

      Also those who look up other women's skirts are known as perverts. The Church teaches custody of the eyes. As my aunt who worked in a shop and had to climb a ladder to get to certain stock used to say to those who got fresh w/her: "My underwear are clean & they're paid for."

      Delete
    13. Conforming to God's will means not conforming to the unisex agenda (1950s the gay magazine "ONE" came out--but seriously got going in the 1960s).
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ONE,_Inc.

      Skip down to one & two of this baptist 'cult' sermon from December 1973:
      http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20Jack%20Hyles/unisex.htm

      I was around nine/ten (1969-70) when I heard my mother laughing in the car about how really couldn't tell the difference between the high school boys and girls from behind because boys had long hair and girls were all wearing jeans... As we have now legalized sodomite marriage in the U.S. please note that from the BEHIND men and women look the same (so what difference does it make whom one has sex w/?)?

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-university-colleges-gender-free-pronouns-transgender-genderqueer-students/

      What sex do you think child is?
      http://punchng.com/four-year-old-undergo-sex-change-australia/

      http://abc11.com/politics/charlotte-schools-dont-refer-to-kids-as-boys-girls/1460043/

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/13/motherless-babies-possible-as-scientists-create-live-offspring-w/

      Delete
    14. Obviously a Sanborn cultist. They have an obsession with this kind of stuff

      Delete
    15. That's exactly right Anon. 11:33: what did women do in such situations for the past ~7000 years, where pants were never worn by them?

      Appalled has written some good things in the past, but this latest excuse to wear pants is just borderline ridiculous and unworthy of a reply.

      Delete
    16. ^^^ Meant to say Anon. 10:56.

      Delete
    17. Typical over exaggeration of the topic from someone following these cult men. It was pants, and it went into gender reassignment and homosexuality?

      At one point, were not all (men and women) wearing robes like the Muslims? I don't see any men/women claiming men should dress like we did 2000 years ago, just that women should. Roles, responsibilities, and otherwise have changed for both sexes. Clothing, style, etc. has changed over time. Modesty should always be considered. There is a certain level of modesty women should obtain, and a certain level of responsibility men should have to guard one's eyes and not blame women.

      Our Lord didn't turn away a prostitute, an adulteress woman, or otherwise. Why should these men or women decide they are better than anyone else and turn them away?

      The idea of misogyny reaches far beyond clothing with these men. They claim to be Catholic, yet they treat women as though they are only good for childbearing or cleaning. The way Sanborn talks about women in sermons is disgusting. The way he brings homosexuality and other sins against nature, polluting many innocent minds (children or adults) is beyond disgusting. Is it out in society? Yes. Is it something that 85 year old women or 6 year old boys need to hear on Sunday? NO

      So, you Sanborn followers, leave your trash somewhere else. Listen to your Sunday sermon and continue to pollute your mind with the negativity, instead of focusing on God's greatness and getting yourself to Heaven. It is obviously easier for you to look down on others instead of realizing we all have our own faults.

      Delete
    18. Excellent answer, 5:51 AM.

      Sanbornites should give up the pants polemic anyway. Little Danny Dolan showed he has no problem with pants on women when he last visited Argentina and was photographed with women of all sizes, shapes, and ages proudly sporting their pants in chapel. (You can see two of the many pix we have here in our Oct. 17, 2015 post.)

      Delete
    19. Oh, I think he's thought about it for "fat" or "unattractive" women. He once said it is more sinful for someone who is not fat to wear pants, since they are the ones people tend to attract. I wonder what the weight cut off or physical attractive cut off is ?

      Yes, those statements are Catholiic, right?

      Delete
    20. "Tubby" Dan said that?

      Well, we've got a pic of His Corpulency seated not 6 people away from an apparently pants-wearing, plus-sized young woman. And next to her is a pretty adolescent decked out in white pants (probably one of the confirmands) and wearing open-toed shoes.

      Seems like Dannie found no sin there, or why would he have allowed his picture to be posted on the web?

      We took it to mean that Dannie approves of pants on women.

      Delete
    21. I apologize, I should have clarified that Sanborn said it

      Delete
    22. That's OK. Have you see the gut on him lately?

      Delete
    23. Anonymous September 13, 2016 at 10:56 PM
      As my aunt who worked in a shop and had to climb a ladder to get to certain stock used to say to those who got fresh w/her: "My underwear are clean & they're paid for."

      Such a charming woman your aunt is/was! Such a clever yet effective response to those gawking up her hindquarters, and said in Ebonics. Why though was she working in the first place and obviously doing the job of a man climbing a ladder? Shouldn’t she have been home cooking, cleaning and taking care of her family? Perhaps she enjoyed putting on this little show a bit too much? Is it modest and Mary like to even acknowledge perverts looking at her underwear let alone placing herself in a situation where she could be such a temptation to perverts?

      Delete
    24. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2016 at 10:56 PM
      Should those w/facial deformities wear a bag over their head to bless mass attendees?

      What on earth is this supposed to mean? Are you sure you haven’t sustained brain damage by tightly tying a heavy duty plastic bag over your head for long periods of time? Intentional oxygen deprivation to the brain?
      Since when does a layperson, in the traddie orbit, bless Mass attendees?

      Delete
  7. Anon 3:03AM, I think what you meant to say for #3 was that they were lining their pocketbooks with money. If they were aligning them they would be forming them up all in a row.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank you for the correction.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousSeptember 12, 2016 at 6:31 PM
    Stated:

    "...when the fact is that this is the way it has been all throughout history: women have always been covered..."

    Well, I am a part of that history and that most certainly is not a fact in the '50's. Uniform code for all school girls was 2 inches below the knee, not down to your calf. The working Catholic girl would wear suits that resembled Jackie Kennedy's suit on that infamous day in Dallas. That whole attire was considered respectable, modest and stylish.

    Unfortunately that would never pass the $cornful $cowl of these $scoundrels. To the contrary, they would complain that the shirt was too tight, or the color to bright.

    We were taught modesty, dignity, and respect in all areas of our person.

    I believe the times that you are speaking of is when women were considered chattel.

    Covered up, and made to shut up!

    This is more like the way the Cult Masters would like it. It is called CULTIE CONTROL.

    What a pity! If they spent more time in teaching the Faith as Christ taught it, they would not be throwing out so many potential saints like St. Mary Magdalene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the times that you are speaking of is when women were considered chattel.

      Covered up, and made to shut up!


      You also believe God Himself is a misogynist too then, for women covering up came from His own ordinance.

      Or will you say this was all an evil, man made corruption and that a bunch of godless fashion designers and liberals finally freed women in the 20th century?

      Delete
    2. Should the BVM appear sleeveless and showing her legs in her next apparition?

      Delete
    3. Just that Our Lady's feet can be seen. Padre Pio identified and drove away a false vision of Our Lady - her feet were not visible.

      Delete
    4. I don't believe the dress code that SGG or mht has is about descency, but more about control.

      Delete
  9. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/itsall-over-for-fr.html

    Messrs Salza and Siscoe dropped part two of their refutation of Fr Cekada. The early part might not be so interesting, except that it carries complaints or remarks from members of a Traditional Catholic forum (largely SSPX) on how Fr Cekada carried himself. It was over his usual personal abuse and word games (demanding an example of the term pertinacious heretic when this term for a stubborn public heretic is just a synonym of sorts for a contumacious heretic). The admin or sysop on a sedevacantist forum (Te Deum) replied to one of the attempts to get an answer from Fr Cekada. Why could Fr C not do that? It suggests that Fr Cekada lacks the intellect to uphold the sede case. He fled the first mentioned forum because no one wanted to play his game, and he could not deal with a citation of pertinacious heretic. Now non-members of forums or particular internet sub-cultures find forum/Youtube fights tedious, but it does bear on modus operandi of one of the best known cult masters.

    S&S mentioned that certain sede defenders reject any pre-20th century citations as canonists like the Portugese Thomist John of St Thomas eviserate their case, or at least eviserates anything the SGG and MD crew are presenting.

    John of St Thomas writings on the Pope as the rule of faith, is the hook on which they hang a fairly neatly made refutation.

    They also provide a photo and make mention of Fr C supported the slow killing of Terri Schiavo by starvation and thirst.

    There are good and honorable sedevacantists. Fr Chuckie, Bps One Hand, and Sinburn are not good men, and also lack a sufficient knowledge of Latin for anyone to be certain of the Masses they say or the Sacrament they confer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link to part 2 to the S & S series. We hadn't seen it yet. It's too bad the well-intentioned sedes don't just jettison the Checkmeister, Tradzilla, and "One Hand." Especially Checkie. He's singlehandedly defeated their position.

      Delete
  10. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2016 at 5:47 AM

    Decreed:


    "...You also believe God Himself is a misogynist too then, for women covering up came from His own ordinance..."

    Why don't we leave the JUDGING to GOD!

    "Judge not lest ye be judged..."

    I would never presume to think God anything other than, "A Supreme Being who made all things," that would include the saint and the sinner, who deserves all my love through my own Free Will.

    The Blessed Mother was chosen by God to be born in the times of which she was born, and she wore the modest clothing of those times. Catholic women in the 50's wore the clothing of the times, and were for the most part modest.

    Are the fashions today modest? NO, they are not. We are in the times that were predicted.. " Men in woman's clothing and woman in men's"...

    If you want covering up, there are an array of very modest pants suits that cover from the neck to the ankles. However,covering up is not what the Culties want. They want control!

    When God created Eve for Adam it was as a fellow traveler through life, not to be used and a abused, but to be loved as God loved Adam.

    The sins of the Flesh come in all ways, and whether a hem line is one inch above or below the knee is hardly the catalyst that has put us where we are today. If it were, then God's children in Burkas would still not be getting stoned to death in Muslim Controlled Countries today.

    Our sins are of the Will! If we conform our will to God's Will, out of love for God, there would be no finger pointing, except upward in prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some have no time to pray anymore. To them prayer has been replaced by judging others and name calling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This whole blog is devoted to judging and name calling, but when criticism turned on you, suddenly the critics are neglecting prayer (y'all sure learned a lot from SGG & MHT!).

      While many agree w/criticisms of MHT & SGG, doesn't give you all leave/nor does it behoove you to engage in same hypocrisy.

      Seems some women here want to decide that because their legs are "deformed" they can wear pants to Mass.

      They can wear pants in general whenever they choose as long as they believe they have "a good reason."

      W/the permission of the male members here, they can conform their dress to the 1950s standard. From 1953:
      https://www.google.com/search?q=deborah+kerr+shorts&biw=1536&bih=727&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH6_j-4o_PAhWHbB4KHdz9CFwQ7AkILg#imgrc=YiH_pdwARhwGmM%3A
      Just cut to the last 10 seconds:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_reftTX0Ayg

      Y'all can do what you want, but no need for kids to go to SGG to be corrupted, they can be corrupted by their parents FS, DR, DK & BL--like most 50s & 60s kids were. Seems this generation had already been corrupted itself.

      Delete
    2. Respectfully, I think the blog is more like disclosing falsehoods and cover-ups so that others do not follow down a path of destruction. These men (SGG and MHT) are not examples of the true Catholic faith, and until they are exposed by blogs like this, more people will follow this unfortunate path, which may in fact, cause them to lose faith or follow a false one.

      I don't see the comment that you mentioned about wearing pants from a woman, so I can't respond to that.

      Delete
    3. Disclose also the errors of V2, after which Catholics in the millions lost the faith.

      Delete
    4. No one here has much time for V2, or the 'Reform of the Reform,' 'Hermenuetic of Continuity' bad dope. V2 and Concilium afterwards with its 'New Mass' were like Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun come to destroy the Church. The collapse in vocations was astounding. Later, millions of lay faithful were lost in the West to the Church, and I'm honestly wary of cheery stats from the developing world. However, SGG and MHT have in Fr Cekada and the rest of the crew are the most prominent in spreading error and confusion (look at Youtube if you can endure Fr Cekada and his smarm). R&R is imperfect in these days of Bergoglio the Bomber, but at least SSPX priests are now very well formed. The children who go to the SGG school will lose the precious treasure that is the Faith. You can rightly point to problems in SSPX schools, but I strongly suspect we get to hear of SSPX school scandal quickly, with SGG and many under Novus Ordo religious, not so much.

      Delete
    5. Anon. Sept. 14, 11:24 PM, what were you smoking when you came up with your LIE, “This whole blog is devoted to judging and name-calling”? And your charge of “engaging in the same hypocrisy” is not only a LIE, but it doesn’t MAKE SENSE. Actually, this blog (and ours at Lay Pulpit) are devoted to REPORTING FACTS – facts that are ALWAYS backed by HARD EVIDENCE. Your statement about women wearing pants “because their legs are deformed” doesn’t make any sense either. Out of which part of your intestinal tract was that generated? We suggest that you go take a course in remedial logic – or go see a psychiatrist.

      Delete
    6. "...more people will follow this unfortunate path, which may in fact, cause them to lose faith or follow a false one."

      You should know that the ones who run this blog believe that joining the Orthodox sect is a "good and brave thing to do," so following a false faith means nothing to them.

      All they care about is their obsession with the cultmasters, because they're mentally unbalanced.

      No sane person would say or do the things these people do. They're racist, elitist, indifferentist, offensive and uncharitable.

      Delete
    7. "Actually, this blog (and ours at Lay Pulpit) are devoted to REPORTING FACTS – facts that are ALWAYS backed by HARD EVIDENCE."

      Lay Pulpit posts are very evidence based and don't exhibit the name calling so in evidence here. For instance this post has very little (if any) evidence, but MUCH name calling and not even name calling of D/C/S, but of those who attend their chapels. Ask yourself if this list applies to Stehpen Heiner, those who run Novus Ordo Wire, yourselves, the seminarians, people who at one time were probably your friends and are your neighbors? Middle Crass, oafish cultings, shallow hearts, suckers, marks, 'dumbest, least educated, amoral chumps,' 'on the losing end of life from conception,''secretly yearn to be mediocre,' 'frustrated social climbers w/out breeding stuck forever at the soiled bottom of society's Everest,' 'they want bourgeois pseudo Catholicism,' 'laymen... impoverish their wretched families,' 'suckers...always succumb to the siren song of bourgeois schmaltz,' 'fly blown gardens of the witless,' and 'upwardly mobile incurious lumpen proletariat.'

      Also while previous posts have quoted & criticized Dolan for BC's about his cats killing other animals, this post states (w/no evidence!): "Baby Bunnies, pretty pansies, contented kitties, and mistry-eyed meteorological musings form the major topics of Dannie's weekly messages."

      Delete
    8. Have you met Sanborn? He was once quoted as saying foreigners are very dirty people (this was in reference to the foreigners in Brooksville.) If you want to find racists, go to the Brooksville cult. That place is full of racist adults and children. The "n" word is used in normal conversation.

      Not only that, but Sanborn has received so many complaints about his Church being uncharitable to new parishioners, visitors, and the like, that many refused to go back to the place. Over 40 parishioners left at one time, and Sanborn refused to give them their sacrament records. It isn't just lack of charity among the parishioners, but in the clergy themselves. Can you honestly say we shouldn't expect more from religious versus a group of people running a blog?

      I find it quite odd that many parishioners secretly talk about wanting a different alternative to Sanborn's chapel, but they continue to stay because they have been brainwashed into thinking this is the only place that has the true sacraments.

      Delete
  12. I don't understand why a woman with deformed legs would therefore have to wear pants. Many women now wear long straight skirts to their ankles - many women not even traditional - just because the skirts are pretty, fashionable & really easier to wear & more comfortable than pants. It would certainly cover up deformed legs better too! So there goes that argument out the window!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 4:02 PM,

      We don't want to get too personal, but are you a Gertie or a Swamplander?

      The reason we ask is that if you're a Gertie, then "One-Hand Dan" Dolan has already given his tacit approval for women to wear pants, so you're far out of step with your cult master. (See our earlier post with pix HERE.)

      Now if you're a Swamplander, then we can understand your monomania. However, if you are a Swamplander, you must not be one of the moneyed élite, whose women-folk can even wear shorts, at least when motor-bike riding in Mexico. They can wear denim, too.

      "It's the rich man's world" — even in Tradistan.

      Delete
    2. Why do you think only "Gerties" and "Swamplanders" would oppose women wearing pants? Don't you know most traditionalists oppose it? Most who are not even sede, btw, and have nothing to do with the cultmasters.

      Delete
    3. Anon. 4:02 PM, you just don’t get it, do you! Actually, PANTS are more comfortable. And, by the way, many of the “down-to-the-ankle” dresses and skirts worn by the cult women are “wrapped so tight” that they are themselves “immodest.” And, because they’re very “restrictive” to walk in, they’re downright UNSAFE. And another “by the way” is that, if dresses are (as you claim) “more comfortable,” then why aren’t MEN wearing them?! Face it, MORON, it is YOUR argument that goes “out the window.”

      Delete
    4. Watcher, I believe you owe (the lady) Anon. 4:02 PM an apology.

      Delete
    5. It's OK, NCTrad. They've been dealing with a lot of mudslinging & utter nonsense lately & I guess it just got to them. I must say tho that the response took me by surprise. They're usually very even-tempered.

      Delete
    6. Hey, NCTrad

      Don't you think that Anon @5:44AM is more benign in his view regarding Watcher and Anon. 4:02PM in their disagreement?

      If YOU wish to be consistent, let's see you start demanding that the cult masters apologize for all they have done to their victims. Should be easy for you to do, unless you support/enable the cult masters.

      Delete
    7. I am not a sede-vacantist, and have never met any of the protagonists mentioned on this blog. For all I know, they may well be total sleazeballs.

      And by the way, Anon @5:44AM is a lady (reread her comment below carefully). If "Watcher" is a Catholic gentleman, he ought to apologize, rather than following the poor example of the cult masters.

      Delete
    8. This is a notice is for everyone.

      The Watcher runs his own blog and, as they say on TV or a DVD, his responses don't necessarily reflect those of the management of this blog.

      The replies from this blog's staff will either come from the Reader or from Pistrina Liturgica. All others are their own agents and choose their own tone.

      The Watcher's tone in his comments is uniquely his own, while ours is decidedly less testy. In our view, everyone must adopt his or her own voice. We don't criticize or applaud the voice the Watcher has assumed: each to his own, we say. But it is definitely not PL's. Whether the Watcher apologizes or not, then, is his decision

      However, we must apologize for that fact that we had not earlier made it clear that the Watcher is an independent commenter who stands outside PL's editorial oversight.

      Our omission has justly resulted in our being condemned by friendly commenters. We've always tried not to get riled up, and we've prided ourselves on our restraint, which other commenters have noted.

      The Watcher's status as a commenter is just like any other person who posts here, so he's free to use whatever mode of discourse he likes, provided he respects certain, basic limits as to language and imagery.

      In the future, we ask everyone to bear in mind that the Watcher's reactions are independent of Pistrina Liturgica and the Readers.

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

      Delete
    10. Already knew that (I read his blog too), just wondering how much decency he has as a Catholic gentleman. Time will tell.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous September 15, 2016 at 4:02 PM
      I don't understand why a woman with deformed legs would therefore have to wear pants.



      Thanks so much for proclaiming a universal, one size fits all solution to the issue of women wearing pants! They were all wondering when someone would come up with a solution to their dilemma.

      Your suggestion for women to wear “pretty fashionable” skirts was never considered let alone entertained by ALL by women with leg deformities and I am sure, once notified, they will rush to the fashionable skirt stores en masse, in their scooters, wheelchairs, on crutches, braces on their legs, edema, etc. to drool over this new found discovery to please you and the others who would otherwise gawk and stare and shame them in their pants. Such a gift you and yours have for deciding that their mobility issues will be solved by these comfortable, pretty fashionable skirts. Wow, not only will they now be fashion plates at their respective Mass centers, but will also enjoy comfort in their skirts, something absolutely none of them thought of. Well, are any women with leg deformities capable of thought anyway?

      Delete
    12. Anon. Sept. 16, 2016 @ 5:49PM -- The key word there is HAVE. No woman with deformed legs would HAVE to wear pants. She could if she wants but she could also wear long skirts. Her choice & yes, I know that under Sanborn you have no choice. I was talking GENERALLY.

      Delete
  13. Watcher & Reader, I'm Anon 4:02PM & I'm far from SGG & MHT & have absolutely no connection to them & have followed this blog for a long time & agree with you about the state of affairs in those places. I also assure you that I'm not a moron & enjoy this blog because of the intelligence it displays. Intelligence is so sadly lacking anywhere these days. I was in high school during the 50's when we wore those poodle skirts & other pretty skirts & dresses. You never saw women wear jeans except to garden or do farm chores. I miss those days. Fast forward & I too had a wardrobe of jeans & slacks. Now as I look around all I see are jeans on men & women. It's almost got to the point that it's a uniform!! Everyone is in them. It got to be depressing so as my jeans wore out I didn't replace them & instead bought skirts. Most just below my knees (because I have knobby knees) & some to my ankles. I'm known as the woman in a skirt at work as everyone else is in jeans. I don't think that's very professional. No one is forcing me to wear a skirt - it's just my decision. I'm now seeing a few more at work wearing skirts & most are the straight skirts of soft material to the ankle & yes, some short skirts. I don't think anyone has the right to complain about something unless they are willing to do something about it so in my little corner of the world I wear skirts. I agree with you about tight skirts. And yes, Dolan is a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We admire your very-well expressed elaboration of your position. And guess what? All the Readers feel the same way, even our female 20-something tech guru from Mexico, who wears slacks in our North American winters and jeans when she's working on computer equipment.

      We're heartsick at the loss of the old patterns of formality, and it's disturbing to wear a suit and tie to go out to a nice restaurant and then feel out of place because you're overdressed, with everyone else in jeans, tee-shirts, sneakers and flip flops. We, too, miss the days when decent people had a sense of decorum and knew that different circumstances required different habiliment. In our mind, getting dressed up made the meal taste better.

      Your personal decision to make a stand at work for professional standards is laudable, and some of us did the same our before retirement when we did not succumb to that "Casual Friday" laxity.

      Our point is that those people who have lost their sense of formality are not sinners. Badly brought up, perhaps, but not committing mortal sin. That's nonsense invented by the traddie fanatics. Furthermore, your decision was motivated by your own interior sense of propriety, not imposed externally by malformed, women-hating clerics, who would have forbidden poodle skirts and attractive dresses. These men use the fiction of pants-as-mortal sin as a wedge to intrude deeper and deeper into people's private lives. Many of us old timers lived in Catholic neighborhoods in the '50s and recall lots of good moms in pedal pushers and they played with their kids in the park or picnicked on the weekends. No one ever thought they were in mortal sin. Of course, on Sunday, they dressed in their finest (which was definitely not a pioneer dress). In a well-do-do parish, it often looked like a fashion show, especially on Easter Sunday.

      Delete
    2. Anon 4:02 here again. I thought that you misconstrued my post, most likely because you're being bombarded with nonsense lately. So I felt I had to further explain. I still wear long shorts & capris. I see nothing wrong with them - in their place. And I don't think that women in jeans are committing mortal sin. I rather feel sorry for them that they're a slave to the present-day "uniform". They know not what we've lost.

      Delete
    3. The jeans "uniform" is a loss to both men and women. The actor J.K. Simmons looks ridiculous in the Farmers Insurance commercials with his tie, vest, and suit coat with jeans, as do Milanese older men we've seen in Italy, who think they're being hip when they look ridiculous with their paunches hanging over their designer belt buckles.

      But for us, it's just as bad when we see poorly shaven traddie men with their wrinkled shirts, ratty ties, and undersized sweater vests at Mass, who then look down at a man in a cashmere turtleneck, camel-hair blazer, and crisply pressed wool slacks. Those traddie slobs are just as inappropriately dressed as the mid-life crisis jerk who sports fashionably ripped jeans and a designer-logo sweatshirt. Those trads who claim they are in charge of their wives should demand a freshly ironed shirt for Mass, nicely creased trousers, and a new tie for Fathers' Day. Or, had they been brought up in the '50s, they would have learned how to care for themselves from a watchful mother and be able to give their wives a break.

      Delete
    4. I agree. Fortunately I'm very blessed to be able to go to a church where everyone dresses nice to show respect for Our Lord, they're devout & I'm among equals. One man did start showing up a bit on the tattered side but he has come around & I seriously doubt that anyone had to talk to him. He just seemed to pick up on the general mood. He comes every Sunday nicely dressed & is devout. (if you can dare judge by appearances.)

      Delete
    5. I really don't think the pants situation is the issue. Most women would walk into church once wearing pants, and be so embarrassed they would walk out or make sure they wore appropriate clothing the next time. In general, many "every-day" people prefer to fit in at a church function. You will always have the exception to the rule, but that's life. It is when that exception tends to come over and over breaking the church dress code that someone KINDLY steps in and points the dress code out to them.

      Yet, I think this whole pants thing has reached a different level of control. It isn't just at Church functions, but you have Bishops, such as Sanborn, stepping in and telling people what they have to wear outside of Church functions. Yes, obviously, Dolan has had a few sermons about women changing into pants in the church parking lot, but he tends to stay out of everyone's clothing affairs outside of Church functions (and sometimes within, such as Mexico.) Sanborn's control is even more reaching because he tends to focus on even footwear, and instead of realizing not every newcomer is up to his dress standards, he just doesn't want or let them Ito HIS church. Ironically, you will see his denim and shoe selection, and even tight and shorter skirts, given the exception, as long as it is a big donor.

      Then, he overreaches by expecting control outside and shaming people into thinking everything is a mortal sin, but, again, exceptions are made for big donors. I don't believe this is anything more than control.

      Delete
    6. We absolutely agree. He's one of those people who aren't happy unless they're regulating the private lives of everyone around. He can't do it to the Big 3 who basically ignore him or tell him what they intend to do, so he tries to make up for his inability to control his masters by meddling in others' affairs.

      Delete
    7. Actually, we owe Anon. 4:02 PM no apology, for her original remarks were, at best, ambiguous -- and some were illogical (and, in some cases, wrong) – and so deserved to be answered the way they were. Now that she has explained her position more clearly, we concur with Pistrina on what she now says. But that is not the way it started out (and we are not “mind-readers” who could have guessed beforehand where she was ultimately “going”). However, that being said, we regret that there was “misinterpreting” – and we’re glad that now “we’re all on the same page.”

      Delete
  14. I still waiting to hear about the boy that hung himself after attending the boys' camp in Rathdrum.
    Or is it just an empty rumor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We haven't heard anything. Hopefully we'll get some reports from people in the know.

      Delete
  15. THE FOLLOWING IS A REPEAT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM ABOVE IN CASE ANYONE MISSED IT. WE PUBLISH TO CLARIFY THE ROLE OF "THE WATCHER," WHO FROM TIME TO TIME POSTS COMMENTS ON PL:

    This is a notice is for everyone.

    The Watcher runs his own blog and, as they say on TV or a DVD, his responses don't necessarily reflect those of the management of this blog.

    The replies from this blog's staff will either come from the Reader or from Pistrina Liturgica. All others are their own agents and choose their own tone.

    The Watcher's tone in his comments is uniquely his own, while ours is decidedly less testy. In our view, everyone must adopt his or her own voice. We don't criticize or applaud the voice the Watcher has assumed: each to his own, we say. But it is definitely not PL's. Whether the Watcher apologizes or not, then, is his decision

    However, we must apologize for that fact that we had not earlier made it clear that the Watcher is an independent commenter who stands outside PL's editorial oversight.

    Our omission has justly resulted in our being condemned by friendly commenters. We've always tried not to get riled up, and we've prided ourselves on our restraint, which other commenters have noted.

    The Watcher's status as a commenter is just like any other person who posts here, so he's free to use whatever mode of discourse he likes, provided he respects certain, basic limits as to language and imagery.

    In the future, we ask everyone to bear in mind that the Watcher's reactions are independent of Pistrina Liturgica and the Readers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know that The Watcher was outside of PL. I enjoy this blog, & the Lay Pulpit, & read it daily & am always on the same page so I was a bit surprised by The Watcher's reaction to my original post. (I'm 4:02 pm) I'll try to keep out of The Watcher's line of sight in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish to say that I DO owe Anon. 4:02 PM an apology – for my engaging in name-calling. It was unjust, and it was uncharitable. I also apologize to this blog (Pistrina Liturgica). Yes, I DO get testy -- usually out of frustration. However, that is no excuse for name-calling. In future, the best thing for me to do is NOT to comment on this blog (and thus bring undo criticism upon it). Again, Anon. and Pistrina, please accept my apology.

      Delete
    2. How nice, lovely to read that, from The Watcher to Anon. 4:02 PM. True charity. Peace to all.

      Delete
    3. Apology gratefully accepted, Watcher. I'm sorry that my post wasn't clear enough so that this would have never happened, but I try to keep my posts as short as possible. We have plenty enemies outside the church that we must fight so we don't need to fight among ourselves. God bless. 4:02pm

      Delete
    4. NCTrad:

      The Watcher has graciously apologized. You should now be satisfied.

      I have read most of The Watcher's comments. Even before this recent "exchange" between Watcher and Anon 4:02PM, I have respected Watcher; I believe he is a decent, upright man with a clear sense of right and wrong. Which is why he uses strong language against the deeds of the cult masters (and whoever/whatever raises his suspicions of being an enabler).

      Kudos to Anon 4:02PM who very reasonably clarified what was ambiguous, and graciously accepted Watcher's apology.

      Warms the heart to know that Watcher and Anon 4:02 are people of good will. Not all are, unfortunately.

      Delete
    5. P.S. (4:02 here) I forgot something very important. Please, Watcher, don't stop posting here. I always liked your posts. At least you're not lukewarm - you know what happens to those people don't you?
      And thank you, NCTrad for sticking up for me.

      Delete
  17. In the on-going women-pants debate [particularly addressed to The Watcher 9/15/16 @ 5:48 pm--pants are 'more comfortable' & why aren't men wearing dresses (how 'bout little boys?), & Anon 9/16/16 @ 5:49 PM I'm on a motor scooter, and The Reader 9/15/16 9:32 PM--1950s pedal pushers is the Gold Standard just thought I would add these current headlines:

    http://www.infowars.com/tv-ad-encourages-german-women-to-wear-hijabs/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/fashion/modern-love-transgender-child-identity-parenting.html

    See the same witch 4 years b4:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/magazine/whats-so-bad-about-a-boy-who-wants-to-wear-a-dress.html

    Boys forced to wear girls clothes:
    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/04/16/teachers-forcing-boys-to-cross-dress-is-wrong-even-if-theyre-wearing-jeans/

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/1121780/boys-uk-can-now-wear-skirts-school/

    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-hunter/jaden-smiths-clothing-line-boy-wants-wear-skirt

    http://neatoday.org/2016/01/06/school-dress-codes-gender-bias/

    God's law is supernatural, complying w/it has nothing to do w/being pretty, fashionable, comfortable, etc. Should 'comfort' be the criteria for priests, bishops, altar servers and religious at mass--or just lay women?

    In the face of the curse that has come down on Christendom, can't understand why women aren't weeping rather than clinging to women's lib: I am woman hear me roar (like the gay pride of lions parade)--like the devil who prowls around like a hungry lion seeking someone to devour.

    Victorian boy in wheel chair:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/simpleinsomnia/11262882286
    Victorian women in wheel chair:
    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/photograph-by-henry-white-of-two-victorian-women-one-in-an-news-photo/90763697

    Now sweats, tennis shoes & disposable underwear required (until you can't "toilet" yourself & then you are neglected to death) (scroll to the last photo):
    http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/sad-dreadful-life-rosemary-kennedy-revealed

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ah, the good old trad debate on women in pants......

    ReplyDelete
  19. There is a very simple formula I follow when it comes to dressing for Mass. Dress modest, decent, and the best you have.

    I recall as a child when we would go visiting relatives on Sunday after Mass it was always known that you wore " YOUR SUNDAY BEST". Why was that? Because in the Christian world, which was predominantly Catholic we dressed up for Sunday Mass, and then did our visiting afterward.
    Pants were not worn in those days by woman, as the Age of Revolution had not reared its ugly head as yet.
    So we were a happier people because we lived by a Common Sense Law. Today, we are fighting to keep our babies from being aborted, mutilated, stolen, or sacrificed for Black Masses that are now being said in our once Christian Nation, by ministers/Satanists who are dressed in DRAG.

    While Rome is literally Burning, we are like the Jew splitting hairs over the letter of the Law, while the Spirit is being torn apart and ripped out from under us and destroyed.

    Personally I welcome the remarks of the "WATCHER" as he brings a reality check to this intellectual blog, which is definitely trying to educate the Masses the way the Church once did in Her glorious past.

    I also respect the Reader for allowing the "WATCHER" to post as he does, as he is never not interesting.

    This is a wonderful blog and I hope it never stops. I commend the "Watcher" for making a formal apology, and look forward to reading more of his posts.

    God Bless those who are trying to correct the ignorance that has become accepted in our world of insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well said! Better than that: faithfully spoken!

    Things were better when common sense reigned because we all had a sense of proportion — and when the clergy had more serious things on their mind, like saving souls, than regulating the minutiæ of individuals' lives over accidentals.

    As the above exchange proves, reason, charity, and courageous humility win the day very time when genuine Catholics practice their faith in earnest. and without reservation. Moreover, this very productive thread has shown beyond a doubt that traditional Catholics don't need the cult masters one whit: they have the grace to live their faith in spite of the "clergy's" bad example.

    Bravi, commenters! The Readers are better women and men for this conversation that witnessed how alive, how transformative our Lord's precepts are even in these dire times.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Of course, on Sunday, they dressed in their finest (which was definitely not a pioneer dress)." You mean like how they're dressed here (see all three pics):
    http://ourladysresistance.org/apparitions-of-our-lady.html

    http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/medal/medal.htm

    http://acatholicland.org/the-apparitions-of-mary-at-la-salette-includes-the-secrets/

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernadette_Soubirous_en_1861_photo_Bernadou_2.jpg

    https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-bronze-relief-juan-diego-guadalupe-shrine-mexico-city-mexico-receiving-revelation-virgin-mary-mexican-image53388813
    "So we were a happier people because we lived by a Common Sense Law."

    Common sense is all very well, but leads to all kinds of disasters like evolution, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, etc. etc. etc. When God gives a law He gives it for our good. Those who are faithful in little will be faithful in greater things. If someone can't be faithful in a small thing like dress, hardly think they are faithful in a large thing. People who think they can get on w/out priests (like Protestants--who also believe they can forgive their own sins w/their perfect acts of contrition) get the countries (laws/governors), societies, neighbors and families they ask for. There's a lot of other clergy besides those you mention here--remember the widow's mite and support any good clergy that you find (must say some who run this blog seem to have quite a soft spot for supporting and encouraging clergy)--most of all because they are God's gift to you and your families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes, we agree some traditional clergy deserve support, but one must choose wisely. And one must be certain in these times that they are real priests, and not one-handed wonders. Yes, you are 100% correct when you say a priest is God's gift. But he must be indubitably valid. When clergy are avaricious, nasty, controlling, and withdrawn, that's a sign they lack the charism of the Catholic priesthood.

      While we agree that in church one should be immaculately clean and dress as well as one can afford, with all due modesty, do you, Anon 1:45, believe that God decreed pioneer dresses and that women under no circumstances should wear any kind of trousers?, even for gardening, housework, or leisure activities in this day in age? And, if we may tell you, we've been in trad chapels where some of the most "pious" menfolk stank to high heaven.

      Delete
    2. "When clergy are avaricious, nasty, controlling, and withdrawn, that's a sign they lack the charism of the Catholic priesthood."

      Does this mean that Martin Luther, Arius, Paul 6 and Cranmer were not validly ordained?

      Your statement is very close to heresy.

      Delete
  22. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2016 at 1:45 AM
    Wrote:

    “Common sense is all very well, but leads to all kinds of disasters like evolution,…”

    I beg to differ with your statement above, about Common Sense. It should read “…but CAN lead…:

    Common Sense follows the Natural Law, which was created by GOD. Unfortunately man with his FREE WILL has decided to Mock God by going against the Natural Law, which is Common Sense.

    The Gifts that you refer to who were given to us by GOD, are the same kind of Gifts who were given to the Church when Our Lady of LaSalette warned us in the 1830”s that Rome would become the Seat of the Anti-Christ.

    Can you imagine all this occurred while woman were dressed in stiff high collar dresses, and their hemline was down to the floor, and men were in Top Hats, Tails and Spats.

    This is a case of, “Not being able to see the trees through the forest”

    FREE WILL is the name of this Game. We either obey God, or we do not!

    It is the same rule that was in the beginning, and will be to the end.

    If you are stripped of your clothes tomorrow, are you stripped of YOUR MORAL CODE AND VIRTUES?

    Yes a Good Priest is a Gift, and a bad priest is your worst nightmare.
    Unfortunately we have more nightmares than Gifts today, because Common Sense has been replaced by dollars and cents, and humility is a thing of the past.

    We are suffering now because like Adam we did not stay vigilant and protect the Garden, instead we allowed that age old serpent to enter Rome, and the laws of God and Man are now being obliterated.

    This was all predicted, and not heeded by our Gifts in charge of the Kingdom of Christ, who violated the Natural Law, in more ways than one.

    We the faithful, are being led to the Slaughter by the Clergy, just take a good look at ROME. “AS THE CHURCH GOES, SO GOES THE WORLD”

    How's the world looking to you today?

    ReplyDelete
  23. https://churchpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/12.png

    ReplyDelete
  24. Are you saying, Readers, that you think that if a woman with an attractive derrière and legs, wears skin-tight pants and a short top so it's all exposed and visible to all, this wouldn't be the least bit sinful or immodest? Same goes for shorts, since you apparently also approve of those.

    It's one thing for a woman to wear pants, but then cover the backside with the top, or wear them loose, and quite another, the example I gave. It may well be that they're not fobidden in themselves, but in the way they're worn.

    And forget about "Dannie approves" because we're not talking about what he approves or doesn't approve of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. We have never argued against modesty. But pants per se are not immodest, unless they are of the type you described. Nor do we think in this day in age that all shorts are immodest. Shorts like pants can be worn modestly. The exercise of common sense will clear up any doubt on these matters for most people.

      Let us give you a concrete example of our thinking: We have a social media picture of some influential adult members of a sede cult vacationing in Mexico. Women are mounted on motorbikes wearing what looks like bermuda shorts. To our eyes, in no way are they immodest. It's the appropriate active sportswear for a day of biking in the sun. But if it were a pic of women in a pew on Sunday, then we'd have another judgment.

      Delete
    2. I see. I thought you were saying wearing any sort of pants and shorts in that manner was acceptable.

      Can you post the picture you mentioned?

      Delete
    3. Apparently the pic isn't available on Facebook any longer after the cult master sermonized about women's clothing. However, we'll ask someone if they have a link. If you send us an email, we'll see if our techie can send it to you. You can easily create a dummie email address. Just reference the date and time of your comment for her.

      Delete
  25. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2016 at 9:19 AM

    Asked:

    "Are you saying, Readers, that you think that if a woman with an attractive derrière and legs, wears skin-tight pants and a short top so it's all exposed and visible to all, this wouldn't be the least bit sinful or immodest?..."

    Good Catholic Common Sense backs the Reader on this one 100%.

    Why? Because it is all in the intent. FREE WILL.
    Any Catholic Woman who Willfully Wears provocative clothing, especially if she is abundantly endowed, would be in grave sin of scandal. Especially, if she intentionally wore anything TIGHT to outline her figure.

    However, the same woman who dresses appropriately in pants, without any malice of forethought, except to enjoy the day, would not be in any sin.

    Basically Common Sense is just good breeding and Good Manners. If you are in Church, it is assumed that you are there to worship God.

    If someone came into Church dressed in the garb of the 1800's, it would create a disturbance, a distraction to the Faithful and the respect they are entitled to be given when in Church, to give worship to God.

    That is why usually in the larger Cities it is noticed that Catholic Police Officers who are on duty, and attend Mass in Uniform, stay in the back of the Church, with their hats removed, so as not to create a disturbance of any kind for the faithful.

    Good Catholic Common Sense caring for your neighbor first, which ultimately is for God.

    So let's see! Who would you say is following the Two Commandments given us by Christ Himself?
    The woman dressed modestly, with the intent to create a "look at me", attitude, or the Police Officer who is fulfilling his Catholic Sunday Obligation, while respecting the faithful, without creating any unnecessary distractions?

    Should God forbid anything catastrophic occur and all computers, and books were destroyed, we would still have our Natural God Given Intellect to discern right from wrong by the Natural order of His Creation, and designs for His Children.

    For want of a better formula, apply the Natural Law it will usually follow your Common Sense, which will preserve, and enhance your Faith to Follow Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bravo or Brava, which ever is appropriate. A very lovely mini essay in praise of mother wit. Ordinary sound judgment is our best friend in most practical situations in life.

      Delete
    2. Do you think men who wear dresses and those who encourage boys to wear dresses are committing a sin?

      I wore pants and shorts almost my whole life (born in 1960)--and many were very immodest, but I was like this is the style--like one of the women above who didn't ask for her deformity or cause it, I didn't ask or cause the style (so I was blameless). When I think back on all the romance novels about the heroine being a tomboy and just having to put on pants I feel I was brainwashed and cattle prodded into pants--try to find a dress/skirt nowadays that isn't a mini rag or some gypsy crap--just a normal dress like everyone wore in the 50s and 60s.

      The same way men are now being cattle prodded into dresses:

      http://financialjuneteenth.com/dave-chapelle-asks-why-are-black-men-in-hollywood-asked-to-put-on-a-dress/

      But when Sodomite marriage was voted into law in my state I threw all my pants and shorts away. I had started attending a trad chapel in 2011 after Pentecost. Before that I had started covering my head at the N.O. mass I attended (2010), but still wore pants (however knew enough when I attended first mass to wear a dress--and it was just long enough but was the longest skirt I had--however didn't know about the neckline.) I have also grown out my hair (which was 1/2 long since I was 22) and stopped coloring it. My best compliments have been from my mother who told me I remind her of her Aunt Marie and one of my 4 sisters who said she wasn't going to dress like Aunt Cass (she goes to FSSP chapel & wears pants or whatever she feels isn't immodest). Both of those were Catholic, God fearing women and, while my Aunt Cass (b 1914) may have worn trousers before I was born, even in the nursing home (1988-2008) she refused to wear pants. My Aunt Marie never wore pants.

      To my newly enlightened way of thinking all the ladies in shorts and trousers are transvestites (or transgenders as they are called now). Maybe you all can stride into the men's room the way men in skirts and naked men are striding into your girl children & grand children's restrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms on school field trips as long as they're wearing a skirt.
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/23/md-schools-dont-tell-parents-transgender-males/

      I am not joking. Lose the pants. For 2000 years women didn't wear them. Not til women's lib. Women have had the vote for less than 100 years and we are 20 trillion in debt w/60 million babies dead. Our countries, our families and our church is destroyed (but women went along because like Eve they don't have to wear hats, dresses, or remain silent--they get to prance about the sanctuary and soon will be Cardinals! They is equal.). Lose the pants.

      Delete
  26. AnonymousSeptember 18, 2016 at 5:04 AM
    Wrote:

    "...I am not joking. Lose the pants. For 2000 years women didn't wear them."


    I beg to differ with you.

    St. Joan of Arc went into battle as a soldier, and was dressed as one, including pants, armor, and short hair, and she was not a transgender. She was a Saint!

    Monks wear Habits, that does not make them transgender.

    Pants are not a 1960's women's lib movement innovation. To the contrary it was well before Vatican II. They were worn before the 1920's. Just look at any Marlene Dietrich movie.

    However, as you say you are new to the True Faith, however getting enlightened does not come overnight. It takes graces for that enlightenment to be fulfilled.

    Personally I find it best never to judge a book by it's cover. Or a person by their outward appearance.It takes time to see the beauty of ones soul.


    If you in the 1960's were shorts and pants that you did not choose to wear, then it is not your sin.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Shadow - 12:58AM- 1. St. Joan of Arc is the exception to the rule. 2.She wore men's clothes while in prison to protect her virtue, which was in jeopardy there. GENERALLY speaking, women should wear skirts or dresses unless the occasion calls for something else. Let's not get off on tangents & above all let's use plain common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That is my exact argument. Pants, are sometimes necessary to wear, and one does not become a transgender for wearing them. Common Sense is my basic rule, and I avoid tangents, because they usually lead to the splitting of the letter of the law and the spirit in which it was written.

    Many nuns during WWII were deprived of their habits and forced into the prison attire of pants and a shirt. This I am sure will earn them sainthood in Heaven, however their virtue was taken from them when their habits were defiled.

    For me personally,I prefer to wear dresses, especially today. I am of the opinion never to follow the Masses.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So answer the question Shadow: Do you think men who wear dresses and those who encourage boys to wear dresses are committing a sin?

    Because when you encourage women to wear pants and/or justify their behavior you are doing the same thing. The start of women wearing pants was women's lib:
    https://www.reference.com/beauty-fashion/first-woman-wear-trousers-989ee039fd155367

    "Since the adoption of trousers in Western Europe in Late Antiquity, trousers have been largely worn by men and not by women until the early 20th century."

    "Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 declared that dresses could not be required of girls. Dress codes thus changed in public schools across the United States. Women were not allowed to wear trousers on the U.S. Senate floor until 1993. In 1993, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Carol Moseley Braun wore trousers onto the floor in defiance of the rule, and female support staff followed soon after, with the rule being amended later that year by Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Martha Pope to allow women to wear pants on the floor so long as they also wore a jacket."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_trousers

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well (since I’ve been invited back), I must weigh in on this obsessive preoccupation that some of the commenters here have about “pants.” Firstly, no matter how many “authoritative” sources (or “internet links”) one chooses to cite to “prove that pants are inappropriate,” there is NOTHING wrong – “morally” or otherwise -- with women wearing pants. In antiquity, women wore “long robe” sorts of garments. Gradually, that changed to garb that, although ankle-length, was simpler and more practical. Now, dresses are ABOVE the ankle, and – as we all know – some are “inappropriately short.” Well, the same thing holds true with pants: some are “inappropriately tight,” for instance. But pants per se are NOT inappropriate. (BTW, women in certain Balkan countries wore PANTS for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.)

    Pants are, in this writer’s opinion, a matter of STYLE, not MORALITY or “appropriateness” -- and the people who say that they are NOT appropriate are not going to convince us, nor we them. So, “waddaya say” we just stop beating this dead horse, and call a moratorium on further discussion of an already worn-out topic. However, for those who still want to beat that horse, perhaps we’ll give them the opportunity later on by making it the topic of an upcoming (Lay Pulpit) article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So answer the question Watcher: "Do you think men who wear dresses and those who encourage boys to wear dresses are committing a sin?"

      Delete
  31. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2016 at 5:52 AM
    Wrote:

    Should the BVM appear sleeveless and showing her legs in her next apparition?

    Your posing a question which is truly bogus, and what is more your know it.

    I am not advocating that the Blessed Mother wear a sleeveless anything or show her legs.
    All I am saying IF she chooses to do it...I am following her!

    As a matter of fact, I do not see too many Catholics outside of nuns wearing anything that remotely resembles what our Blessed Mother Wore then, or in any of her later day Apparitions. Have you?

    As a matter of fact I don't see any of you gentlemen walking around in the Robes that Christ wore. I see a lot of Arabs dressed like that, but not Catholics. I wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  32. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2016 at 3:09 AM

    Goaded:

    "So answer the question Shadow: Do you think men who wear dresses and those who encourage boys to wear dresses are committing a sin?..."

    Sincerely, I feel that you are trying to corral both the Watcher and me, into something that will divide the letter from the spirit of the law, in which it was written.


    That is not going to happen because I could present a case where a Priest is telling the Altar boy to put on a Cassock and Surplice to serve Mass. To those who do not know what serving the Mass entails, could take this completely out of context, and say the following."The priest told the boy to wear some kind of black dress and white blouse." Is he encouraging a boy to wear a dress?
    I'll let you answer that one, as I think the Watcher would agree with me.

    Your question resembles that of the Pharisees trying to bait Christ into His Duty to Caesar and to God.

    In this case as you present it, men encouraging men, or boys to wear dresses is a true deviant suggestion, done solely with the intent to attract men to men.

    Women wearing pants, such myself on occasions, have no intentions of trying to attract other women.

    When I ski, I wear ski attire. They are always pants, as most lodges do not allow dresses or skirts.
    When I Scuba Dive I am in a one piece, skin tight Rubber Suit with legs.

    Again all of the above statements fall under the Intent, Common Sense, the Natural Law, and Free Will.

    I believe that you are trying to split those proverbially hairs again,so you can have the last word to hang your hat on.

    Let's put this dead dog to bed!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry Shadow but I'm just trying to get you to consider the perversity of your defense of pants for women. If it's perverse, wicked, evil and a sin to promote, defend & wear skirts for men and boys, then it is (AND WAS--or are you now promoting the VC2 doctrine that if a wrong has been going on for a long time it is now sacramental?) perverse, wicked, evil and a sin to promote and defend & wear pants for girls and women.

    Women did everything in skirts until women's libbers (liberate from Holy Scripture: God's law) perversely started wearing men's clothes (who wears the pants in your house? How come even to this day all the ladies bathrooms in the US and elsewhere symbolized by a skirt?). There's no double standard for women: they can have a baby or murder it; they can fight in combat, or not (no draft for them); they can work outside the home or have the taxpayer support them to stay home and take care of their kids; they can wear men's clothes (pants), but men can't wear skirts...

    If you want to accuse God of splitting hairs: A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God. (Deut 22:5) You can go along w/the protestants who say those words (and those on modest dress in general) apply to Jesus' time but not to our time (but everything else applies!). But you will pay for the evil you do by putting your will over God's and you will also see the malice and irresponsibility and the evil that has resulted when you face judgment. I pray you repent and recant.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "In this case as you present it, men encouraging men, or boys to wear dresses is a true deviant suggestion, done solely with the intent to attract men to men."

    First of all, it's their MOTHERS in many instance encouraging their boys (as the NYTimes article WOMAN encouraging in the name of EQUALITY--just like all the women supreme court justices performed same sex marriages to prove their equality. WOMEN are having their 4 year old sons' penises cut off. SCHOOLS run by women in the judiciary and legislatures are not allowing children to be referred to as boys or girls--but teaching EQUALITY! Get your facts straight/open your eyes. WOMEN are doing it in the name of EQUALITY and serving the devil!]

    Second: "Women wearing pants, such myself on occasions, have no intentions of trying to attract other women." (A) Eve's desire was to be equal w/God--that was her lust. The origin of women wearing pants was to be = to men (in contradiction of the Holy Bible, which places women under men's governance--a helpmeet to Adam, not his equal nor his boss). (B) Women also seek to govern men through lust. A woman wearing pants (like all the 'tomboys' of the 1970s romance novels) might seek to attract men w/skin tight jeans or just in general outlining their genitals and back sides. (C) Just as many men will wear skirts (support abortion) to be different or to be normal or to show solidarity w/their 'gay' (post abortive) friend, it is not the motive (which could alleviate the penance), it is the action that is culpable.

    Third: "When I ski, I wear ski attire. They are always pants, as most lodges do not allow dresses or skirts [what ski lodge is that? Women skied in dresses for years!]. When I Scuba Dive I am in a one piece, skin tight Rubber Suit with legs." Is this situation ethics? It's okay depending on my activity. It's like saying I have to wear a mini dress to play tennis or go skating or an immodest swim suit to go swimming. Look at what people wore to do these activities and also how they were segregated by sex prior to the 20th century. It's also your choice to engage in certain activities. Maybe to preserve modesty and out of respect for God you should refrain.

    Fourth: "Again all of the above statements fall under the Intent, Common Sense, the Natural Law, and Free Will." Not only do you give advice contrary to Holy Scripture, Catholic Tradition and traditional priests, you then capitalize words like "common sense"--like is there some book of "common sense"/authority you are citing? Stealing is stealing. Fornication is Fornication. Violating God's law is ALWAYS wrong although penance could be mitigated by your intentions (giving scandal is always wrong). In nature many creatures are distinguishable by sex (i.e. dressed differently)--so not sure how natural law helps you (natural law never contradicts God's law). We all have free will and you have freely set yourself up as a Catholic authority licensing people to do wrong (like Catholics for Choice)--certainly don't see how you justify that. James 3:1 - "Be ye not many masters, my brethren, knowing that you receive the greater judgment."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Your long Diatribe now is adding more into the equation that you originally asked to be answered.

    You give all indications of being very judgmental of any answer given you no matter what.Now it is mothers encouraging their boys to wear girls clothes. Again against the NATURAL LAW, Which is God's Law,being violated.

    This is not hard, everything you site is against the Natural Law of GOD therefore if it is against the Basic Law of God which is the Natural Law, hence the 10 Commandments then it is against GOD and it is a SIN. Stop making this so hard!

    In the beginning was Adam and Even and ONE LAW do not eat of this fruit. In the end of time which I believe we are well into there will be but one LAW. LOVE GOD WITH YOUR WHOLE HEART MIND AND SOUL. That will be it.

    The Natural Law, even animals know the most basic of God's Law and they adhere to it, until man comes along with his various perversions of the WILL, and is now corrupting even the beasts.

    Pray your Rosary, and stop twisting the GOOD WILL of those following The Natural Law of GOD, which again IF NOT PERVERTED is COMMON SENSE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Natural Law of God (where is that found?) doesn't contradict Holy Scripture, Catholic Tradition or Catholic priests. You are not permitted to wear pants when you feel it is "common sense" to do so--especially when even riding horses etc. women wore skirts. Your "common" sense has been perverted by your corrupt society (what's "common" for this society is evil--everything is permeated w/it--so that one lives a life of virtue AND vice).

      https://www.amazon.com/Food-Swings-Recipes-Enjoy-Virtue/dp/1101967145

      Also when you speak of "common sense" believe you should meditate on what you claim to believe as a Christian; and how Christianity has NOTHING in common w/the world. Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his only son (plus many other things, like separate from Lot, leave his home and family to go out to some promised land); Noah to build an arc and put male and female of all the animals in the world in it; Adam and Eve not to eat from one tree, to believe that a dead man rose from the grave and raised 3 others from the dead, that Bread turns into Jesus' Body and Blood whenever a priest says some words, etc. etc. etc. In the eyes of men/the world, Christians are fools.


      Also Romans 1 (and Genesis) will tell you the order in which man falls: For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

      [Commentary on V26: God delivered them up: Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their PRIDE, to fall into those shameful sins.]

      http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52001.htm

      Delete
  36. God created man with FREE WILL, and that is exactly what divided the animal with instincts from the children of God with intellect.

    Intellect is nurtured by following the Laws of God through Tradition that was handed down by God to Man, by WORD OF MOUTH. The intellect is nurtured by God's graces to those who follow HIS basic Laws. Free Will is the difference between those who surrender Their Will to Follow God, and those who choose to follow the instincts of the Flesh, like an animal.

    Christ through His Church left us, His children, who were made to His image and likeness with 7 sacraments to enhance the Natural Law to obtain Supernatural graces that nourish the body and the soul through these Sacraments.
    The animals do not gain heaven for following their instinctive God Given adherence to the Natural Law of Order.
    However, man does when he follows the Natural Law, as given to all things created by God, not by instincts, but by Free Will of their intellect to give Honor and Glory to God to attain Heaven.

    Again long before PEN WAS PUT TO PARCHMENT there was GOD and His SPOKEN WORDS TO ADAM.

    Stop fighting the issue with the Shadow, and the Watcher.

    Again, the point was made by, I believe the Shadow, that if all the books and computers were destroyed you would still have your God given Intellect to surrender your Free Will to God to attain Heaven. God created you for one thing and that is: to know, love and serve, Him, so that you can be with Him forever in Heaven.
    These times are going to get much harder and if you do not follow what has already been given us by God then you are going to get lost in the Minutia of men manipulating God's Sacred Words.

    Rome is lost, because it has fallen into the world and away from God. "Pick up your cross, and follow Christ." Not the easy way, but through the Cross do we follow Christ. It is hard to do the right thing, but God is always there as long as you are surrendering your will to HIS.

    ReplyDelete