ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

How many times has someone at one of the cult centers said something like this: “Well, we’d like to leave, but there’s nowhere else to go”; or this: “We’d like to leave, but we’re waiting for the right moment.”  So, what is it that what makes them stay?  There are many reasons why; but, in most cases, the common thread that runs through those reasons is fear – and the cult masters play on that fear to keep their flocks in tow.

Perhaps the biggest fear that people have – especially at SGG and MHT – is that  they think the cult is the only means of salvation for them.  Little by little, over time, this has been inculcated in them to the point where they think it is literally true – especially regarding “getting the sacraments.”  And once people like Dannie and Big Don have them believing this, then they can use all manner of guilt-tripping and manipulation (especially using the sacraments as weapons) to deny them that “salvation” if they don’t do their bidding  -- classic cult tactics, right out of the cult text book.  People are actually afraid of what Dannie or Big Don will say or do if they break one of their “rules,” or otherwise “make a false move.”

And once these people are in that mindset of “no salvation outside the cult,” they actually think that there’s nowhere else on earth that they can go “for the sacraments.”  Their cult masters actually have them believing this.  The truth is, there are, in most cases, plenty of places they can go for the sacraments: SSPX, FSSP, SSPV, CMRI, various independents – whatever – ALL of whom are valid. 1  And as to whether or not these others are “licit,” who are these self-proclaimed “authorities” like Dannie and Donnie – renegades outside the institutional Church, who haven’t any authority or jurisdiction whatsoever -- to say who is or isn’t licit?

They’re also afraid to leave for fear of offending their “friends” (i.e., their fellow parishioners).  “What will they think of us if we leave?”  “What will they say?”  The answer to those two questions is, “Who cares?”  Backbiting “friends,” who micro-examine everything one says and does, aren’t worth having, and are not friends at all.  If they shun you, that’s their loss and your gain.  Pick new friends.  And remember, friends and acquaintances are yours to choose, not the cult-masters’ – and you don’t need the cult-masters’ “permission” to choose them.

Perhaps, however, it is not so much fear of “offending” anyone, but the idea of having “invested” so much time (and money) in the cult centers, and not wanting to “throw it away” and “start all over again” somewhere else – especially with respect to the school.  Perhaps they think that their kids won’t get a “good Catholic education” somewhere else.  Well, they’re not getting one at the cult centers either.  Instead of an education based on sound Catholic moral principles, they’re getting one that dwells on superficialities, where riding roller coasters and wearing “inappropriate” headbands are “mortal sins,” but watching porn apparently isn’t (that is, if it’s the principal’s sons who are watching it).2

Besides getting an education that really isn’t Catholic, they’re also getting one that is woefully sub-standard. Most of their “teachers” are not accredited, and most of their courses are watered down.  (In most cases, good college prep and advanced courses aren’t even available.)  Much of the cult centers’ “class time” is taken up with “choir practice” and attending extra-curricular church services (such as required attendance at parishioners’ funerals); and, often times, “class time” consists of  “house-keeping” chores (such as, cleaning the classrooms and/or the nuns’ quarters, or doing yard work around the school).  The bottom line is that these kids are academically ill prepared to compete in today’s world. 3

Then what about those people who are “waiting for that right moment” – who have not yet “had enough” to make them leave?  Perhaps they think they need some sort of “incident” to get them to leave – something really “blatant” to justify their leaving.  They say to themselves, “The next time Dannie (or Big Don) pulls something like that, I’m bolting.”  But that “next time” comes, and they do nothing, because the deed is not quite blatant enough to “push them over the edge.”  And as things keep getting inevitably worse, they keep tolerating it and making “allowances” for it (and keep on saying  “next time”).  But that “next time” is a tomorrow that never comes.  The truth is, things will never get better, because the cult-masters don’t want them to get better.  As they’ve demonstrated so many times, they’re in it for the money, not for saving souls.  And, consequently, what they offer is not Catholicism but a caricature of it – “the show” – because that’s what brings in the revenue.   

So, the thing to do is to leave – just leave.  Don’t wait for “that right moment.”  After all, when is the “right moment” to rid oneself of a malignant tumor?  The right moment is NOW – and always has been.  By staying, you are risking not just your own souls, but your children's as well.  Eventually, when they come of age, they will see through the hypocrisy and the double standards of the cult center; and it will disillusion them – perhaps to the pinot of losing their Faith.4  That, coupled with the cult center’s substandard academics, will ill prepare them for the future, both materially and spiritually.  Are you willing to mortgage their future just for the sake of having your “show”?  Again, just leave.  Leave before it’s too late.

And – guess what -- when you do leave, “the big bad wolf” is not going to “huff and puff, and blow your house down,” as the popular children’s story goes.  Oh yes, humbugs like Big Don will do a lot of “huffing and puffing” (and Dannie will keep on handing out his weekly dose of “guilt-tripping”): but there is little else they can do.  So why prolong your bondage?  Why put up with what you know is wrong?  Do what your conscience has been telling you to do: leave.  Nothing will happen – except that you’ll experience a feeling of relief (and exhilaration) for having rid yourself of these predators.  And, as we’ve said so many times, you, your souls, and your wallets be glad you did. 
______________________________

1 A word of caution about the CMRI: although there may be some worthy priests in its fold, it is obvious from recent reports that its leader, Pivarunas, allied himself with the SGG and MHT cults; and he is acting more and more like Dannie, Tony, and Big Don – especially with respect to living the grand life-style.  (From all reports too, CMRI’s “seminary” is also a joke, about on a par with Sanborn’s Florida flop house.)  If one has other choices available, it is best to choose one of them over a CMRI chapel.

2 For all of Dannie’s sanctimonious prattle, real Catholic morality is non-existent at SGG.  What good is his waxing poetic about “our innocent children” when he passes off watching porn (and animal torture videos) on the school computer as “boys will be boys.”  (Kind of explains why Dannie dwells on his cats’ baby bunny carnage all the time, doesn’t it!)  And what kind of pastor would condone the abuses that went on at SGG’s school?  (Click here for a more complete listing of those abuses.)  And what kind of “moral theologian” would justify what happened to Terri Schiavo?  A depraved one, that’s what kind.  But that’s the sort of crap that passes for “morality” at the cult centers.

3 So, what other academic choices do they have?  Many.  First, they can home-school their children -- which is not so hard as some might think.  For instance, there are many courses available on-line, so it’s not like mom has to devote her whole day to “schooling.”  There are, in fact, entire school curricula available on-line, so – other than “checking” on the kids once in a while, mom can leave them to themselves.  (Many moms do this.)  Secondly, several families can band together to form a home-schooling “network,” thus sharing the task, making the load lighter for all.  (There are home-schooling support groups, too, that home-schoolers can avail themselves of – both at the local and national levels.)  Another option, of course, is sending the kids to a “Novus Ordo” school, and just “opting out” of “religion” courses.  (Many do this as well.)  The bottom line is that just about any option is better than sending one’s kids to the cult center’s “school.”


4 When the school scandals broke out at SGG in 2009, many of the teenage kids were already aware of what was going on.  When they found out about the principal’s sons watching porn on the school computer -- and especially when they found out about one of those sons impregnating a fellow student -- they saw through all the hypocrisy and the double standards, and, “putting two and two together,” became thoroughly disillusioned with the cult’s brand of “traditional Catholicism.”  Consequently, many of them left – some even abandoning the Faith altogether.

14 comments:

  1. FSSP is NOT valid. They derive their orders through N.O. "Bishops" dubiously consecrated in the 1968 rite with a defective form and dubious intention. Only those (very few) founding priests who broke away from the SSPX are valid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. They're also in ACTUAL union with false pope Francis. To be in union with them would be to receive the Sacraments from heretics.

      Delete
    2. Actually, NO ONE has the authority (or jurisdiction) to rule whether the FSSP is valid or not. Certainly no one in Traddieland does. Until the Restoration, only the institutional Church can rule on that. As far as bishops are concerned, VERY FEW in Traddieland are valid (or licit). Dolan’s orders (for both priest and bishop) are certainly dubious (and, in the opinion of this writer, INVALID).

      Another thing for sure: the FSSP priests are FAR AND AWAY superior in formation to most Traddieland clergy – especially those from Sanborn’s puppy mill, and CMRI’s “Simplex Complex.” And, most of FSSP’s priests are good, decent men, not like the depraved wretches that MHT et al crank out.

      So, until a true Restoration of the Church sorts things out, any pronouncements about the invalidity of FSSP priests (or any others) is pure CONJECTURE.

      Delete
    3. Ok, so Dannie is dubious because one hand was used by Abp. Levbvre. Now who's making the judgement? Certainly not the institutional Church of Bergoglio! However, if you change the form from that defined by Pope Pius XII, and change the ENTIRE RITE to resemble an Anglican "Ordination" or "Consecration", you can safely go the FFSP? Sure, that makes sense.

      The alleged training of the FSSP is irrelevant. You can have ten earned doctorates from Harvard, but if you're not validly ordained, the Mass and all Sacraments that depend on the sacerdotal character for validity would be null and void.

      "Very few" Traditional bishops are valid? Says who? Not the institutional Church, so isn't that just your conjecture?

      When a Catholic rite is discarded, it is more than mere conjecture that the orders are invalid. If the use of one hand is enough to make an episcopal consecration dubious, how is the gutting of the form spelled out in Sacramentum Ordinis not dubious?

      You personally know MOST FSSP PRIESTS so as to vouch for their moral character? You get around quite a bit! Aren't they in Union with Jorge? Any "priest" in Union with him should be kept away from children as a safety precaution, not praised.

      Delete
    4. First off, I made no “judgment.” I said that in my OPINION, Dannie was invalid. If anyone else thinks he is or isn’t, fine, they’re entitled to THEIR opinion. But whether Dannie is valid or not, one thing for sure: he’s a moral leper.

      As far as the ordination rite (or any other rite) is concerned, if a pope changes it from what a previous pope did, that doesn’t necessarily make it invalid – and only a POPE can make a judgment on whether it is or not -- not you (or anyone else).

      And as far as trad “bishops” are concerned, you’re right in that it’s just my OPINION that most are invalid. I should have qualified my statement that way. However, any of them who have been “consecrated” (without the sanction of the institutional Church) are doubtful, and are certainly illicit.

      Lastly, concerning FSSP clergy: no, I personally don’t know most of them. But I will say this: all of those whom I have met ARE of sound moral character, and are not worldly, self-serving parasites like the SGG and MHT scum – and in their formation, the minimum criteria that they meet is far and away better than the formation of those at the MHT and CMRI “seminaries.” And I would trust an FSSP priest with children (or anybody) before I’d trust Dannie, Tony, or any of Sanborn’s misfits.

      Delete
    5. Yes, if a POPE changed the rite, it wouldn't be invalid. However, you are begging the question that Montini was pope! If you accept the post-V2 "popes" then go to your local Novus Ordo parish. You cannot pick and choose what papal decrees you will and won't accept. Actually, your leading people to perdition if you accept Bergoglio yet suggest people go to SSPV, independents, SSPX and others not in Union with him.

      And the man who tells us "Proselytism is nonsense," "Atheists can go to Heaven," and people who believe in moral absolutes are "heretics"---THAT GUY---will tell us whether or not certain orders are valid!

      You should be in an NO parish, taking up a collection for the pastor's bail, while singing "Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore" and praying that St. John will protect Islam like "St" John Paul the Great Apostate did.

      If you're not Sede, then why bother with Dannie who is outside the Church? Root out the moral turpitude the likes of Oliver O'Grady (protected by Roger Mahoney). Compared to O'Grady Dannie is a candidate for sainthood ( the real kind).

      Delete
    6. Oh, and your statement that Traditional bishops consecrated without Bergoglio' s approval are "doubtful" is completely without merit. Even when we had a real pope (Pope Pius XII) and Catholic bishop who consecrated a priest without papal mandate did so VALIDLY, even if illicit. As long as the Cathlic rite was used, there is no doubt. Please cite ONE pre-Vatican 2 theologian who taught that bishops consecrated in the Catholic rite by Catholic bishops are "doubtful" without Church sanction.

      Delete
    7. Firstly, we’re not endorsing Bergoglio in any way. All we’re saying is that the consecration of a bishop must be approved by a pope. Now Bergy or JPII or Montini may or may not be a pope -- but no one can say WITH AUTHORITY one way or the other. So, anyone “consecrated” without papal sanction (after Pius XII) is doubtful, either because (as you claim) Bergy et al are not popes, or because (as we claim) it takes a POPE to sanction the consecration of a bishop – so any trad “bishop” consecrated AFTER Pius XII is doubtful (and CERTAINLY illicit) for the simple reason that he had no “pope” to sanction him. That’s all we’re saying. And, again, we’re also saying that, until the Restoration, no one can make a definitive judgment on whether the N.O rite is or isn’t valid.

      Therefore, in the OPINION of this writer, FSSP priests are valid (and CERTAINLY better trained) than many of the clergy in Traddieland (especially those from Sanborn’s puppy mill). If you think they are not, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But so am I.

      Delete
    8. Your entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. You do NOT need a pope for the consecration of a bishop to be valid. If a Catholic bishop uses the Catholic rite of consecration on a Catholic priest it is presumed valid, the same as if the pope had sanctioned it. Illicit is another matter. You are wrong and have not one authoritative text to back up your assertion.

      Delete
    9. Yes, I am entitled to my opinion, and you know what it is. I don’t care whether you think it is wrong or not; and I do not want to get into any protracted (and fruitless) discussion with you about it. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and I for one haven’t the energy to pursue the matter any further. You believe what you want to believe, and I’ll believe what I want to.

      Delete
    10. Fair enough. However, if you have no evidence for your briefs they are irrational. Should make your readers think twice about the alleged horrors of Dolan and company which you harp on every two weeks.

      Delete
    11. I am a different Anonymous from the one who has been talking.

      The Watcher is incorrect in saying that a bishop consecrated without a papal mandate is doubtful. A mandate from the pope is not necessary for the episcopal character to be given validly. What is necessary is nothing more than that a validly-consecrated bishop perform the ceremony of episcopal consecration correctly upon a validly-ordained priest who intends to receive the episcopacy.

      You're right that the Church requires a papal mandate for episcopal consecration, but not because it's necessary for validity. It requires it so that no one will consecrate bishops without the pope's approval. It gives the pope control over who becomes a bishop.

      Delete
  2. Not only are your briefs irrational but so are your BELIEFS!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My doubts about the validity of traddie bishops are strictly my own, and no one else’s. They represent simply my own private opinion, and I had no intention of imposing them on anyone. In retrospect, I should have stated them as such originally. Sorry about that. You are free to disagree with me and/or to say I am wrong.

    But opinions are one thing, and FACTS are another; and the cold, hard facts about Dannie & Co. are there. They are certifiable, well documented, and corroborated by dozens of witnesses (often by the cult-masters’ own words themselves). The other two “anons” are not able to dispute the article’s facts, so they pick on an unrelated comment in an effort to discredit the article’s credibility.

    ReplyDelete