The Pious Humbug of the Neo-Pharisees:
F. John Loughnan aka "Sean Ó Lachtnáin"

"And Genghis Khan defeated Attila the Hun in battle..."

©Lúcio Mascarenhas (formerly "Prakash").
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].

Years ago, in my naivety, I attempted to inform and correct some persons who, on the internet, claimed that the Hindu ceremony of the "Aarti" is merely an act of homage or greeting, and not one of worship, when from personal experience (I live among Hindus, and in the Indian Union), I know it to be an act of worship. I soon learnt the nature of this class of men, which is one of an utter contempt for the truth and a blind determination to falsify facts in order to prevent souls from waking up to the truth.

These men were William Grossklas, F. John Loughnan and James Akin. The principal issue which I had taken up with them was the reception, by their Heresiarch Wojtyla—the Mahatma Abominationishwara, of the Hindu act of worship (latria) called "Aarti" (

I have already written a number of articles on the issue of "Aarti" proving my position and demonstrating beyond any doubt that the claims made by Loughnan's sect, and which he, Grossklas and Akin parrot, are a tissue of lies. Recently, I have overhauled and integrated the bulk of these pages into one:

From my experience with these three miscreants, and their malice and mischief, I have realized that this is a class of men—"Neo-Cons"—who masquerade and impersonate as Catholic "apologists," but in actual fact, they are agents of Roman Modernism, an apostate sect, and are motivated by a passionate hatred for Christ and His Church, and by a hysteric fear that souls may escape from the Maws of their foul sect, from the Program of Damnation—the New Pentecost, the New Springtime, the New Age, the New Order, the Age of Aquarius—inaugurated by their Heresiarch Roncalli and presently administered by their Heresiarch Wojtyla—the "Lying Pole!"

I also realized that the only appropriate manner of combating such "Neo-Cons", or more appropriately "Neo-Pharisees", and against this their program of sabotaging the deliverance of souls from the Maws of their foul sect, from the Program of Damnation that is the "New Religion", is to go all-out on a harsh, pitiless, merciless counter-offensive, utterly destroying them and all their coy pretensions and exposing their foulness to the penetrating light of day.

This is the policy I have followed against them, against such agents of Satan as Brian Harrison, etc., and which I will now use in this article against Loughnan himself.
On Loughnan's page defending the Antipope "John-Paul II" against the charges of "receiving the mark of the Hindu 'god' Siva", Loughnan quotes
"And Genghis Khan defeated Attila the Hun in battle..."
then goes on to say:
"A remarkable statement by one of the party (of Lefebvrists Loughnan had just attended, and which had provoked him to write that article); remarkable in view of the fact that over 700 years separated the lives of Genghis Khan (c. 1162-1227) and Attila the Hun (c. 406-453).  But even more remarkable statements were yet to come!"
Recently, I found an article by Loughnan which reminds me of this taunt that he threw at the Traditionalists (he lumps together Lefebvrists and Sedevacantists, etc.), and now I believe is the time to hoist this malefactor on his own petard....


  2. See box below.
Page Source:

Message #0
Posted by "Sean O L"

Dear Fr Ambrose,

Of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is alleged that it "is a schismatic offshoot from the Russian Orthodox Church. Since they had no legally ordained bishops to ordain more priests, the original priests or bishops were 'ordained' by laying the hands of a dead bishop on their heads."

It wouldn’t surprise me if what was behind the Pivarunas/Yurchyk liason is a desire (at least on the part of one of the parties) to strengthen claims to Apostolic Succession.
Message #1
Posted by "Fr Ambrose"

Dear Sean,

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP)... is particularly worrying since it is headed by a self-declared Patriarch, Philaret Denisenko, who is married (!) to a woman Mrs Evgenia Denisenko and has two daughters with her.
Message #5
Posted by "Sean O L"

During the 20th century, any loosening of Russian control over Ukraine was accompanied by the formation of an autocephalous (independent) Ukrainian Orthodox church.

The first emerged in 1921 during the brief period of Ukrainian independence, only to be suppressed by the Soviets in 1930.

The second formed behind German lines in 1942; but as the Soviets pushed back the Nazi armies, the church dissolved and the episcopate went into exile in the United States.

In 1990, aware that Ukraine was moving towards independence, the Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy to its Ukrainian metropolitanate under the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (U.O.C.).

This did not prevent the head of the church in exile, Patriarch Mstyslav, from traveling to Ukraine in June 1990 to preside over the third emergence of the autocephalous church. But he returned to the United States for reasons of health the following October.

The situation grew more complicated in 1992, when the U.O.C.'s Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) of Kiev was deposed by the Moscow Patriarchate because of his attempts to distance his church further from Moscow. He then joined the autocephalous church and even claimed the title of locum tenens (temporary substitute) in Mstyslav's absence. This was done without the knowledge of Mstyslav, who broke all ties with Filaret in November 1992.

This incident led to the division of the autocephalous movement into two camps: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate (U.O.C.K.P.), headed by Filaret, who has been patriarch since 1995, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (U.A.O.C.), which remained faithful to Mstyslav.

Patriarch Mstyslav died in 1993, and his successor, Dimitri, died in February 2000. The U.A.O.C. has not yet elected a new patriarch because it hopes to achieve reconciliation with the other Orthodox churches in Ukraine. Filaret—who is himself a very controversial personality—was formally excommunicated by an assembly of the entire episcopate of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1997. Moreover, neither of the two autocephalous bodies are recognized by any other Orthodox church, and the U.O.C. remains the only canonical Orthodox church in Ukraine.

Overall about 55 percent of the Ukrainian population is Orthodox, but the relative size of the three groupings is a matter of dispute. According to statistics provided by the Ukrainian government in 1999, the U.O.C. had 8,016 parishes and monasteries, while the U.O.C.K.P. had 2,195 and the U.A.O.C. had 1,024.

But all opinion polls conducted in Ukraine since 1992 have indicated that the majority of Orthodox believers support the U.O.C.K.P. Both of the non-canonical jurisdictions have a large presence in western Ukraine, where nationalist sentiment is strongest; the U.O.C.K.P. is spread through other areas as well.
After the former metropolitan of Kiev, Filaret Denisenko, decided in 1991 with the support of the first president of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk to lead Ukrainian Orthodoxy out of canonical subordination to Moscow he was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox church and subjected to anathema. The government of Ukraine continues to support Filaret and even has made his church the official confession of the Ukrainian army. But the majority of russophone believers in the south, east, and central provinces of Ukraine continue to remain loyal to UPTsMP, which is not surprising. In Filaret's church worship is conducted in Ukrainian. Believers are convinced that the support of Filaret by the Ukrainian authorities is an explicit measure for wiping out the use of Russian.
Message 1120
From: Antonis Papadopoulos
Date: Fri Dec 1, 2000 4:16 pm
Subject: Ukrainian Controversy News

ITAR-TASS / Orthodoxia 2000 - Kiev, November 13, 2000

The agreement on establishing a joint commission, which will deal with the problems of creating United Local Church in Ukraine, was signed in Constantinople by the representatives of schismatic Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate.

The correspondent of ITAR-TASS was informed of this on November 13th by the press office of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate.

The canonical Church—the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate—didn't take part in the negotiatiions with the schismatics.

The document was signed on November 8th after the meeting of the delegations of the two Churches at the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. It provides for "cessation of mutual accusations", ending the process of changing jurisdictions by parishes, communities and clergymen, temporary refusal of canon-law actions (ordination of priests and removing them from the ranks of clergymen etc).

According to the agreement, all the steps of the Commission will be coordinated with Constantinople. It is supposed that after its work the Commission will present its conclusions to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Constantinople in its turn, must define the "canon-law questions and status of archbishops and clerics" of both churches, i.e. accordance of existing statuses of clergymen to canon laws and the hierarchy of the future Church.
As announced on Ukrainian television by the head of UPTs-KP, Patriarch Filaret Denisenko of Kiev and all-Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew expressed support for the creation in Ukraine of an autocephalous Orthodox church since this "reflects historic traditions and current reality." According to Filaret, at the end of the unification process in Ukraine "there will be an independent Ukrainian church and there will be a church subordinate to Moscow."
Message #6
Posted by "Fr Ambrose"

Dear Sean,

"...A leader in this campaign, the Polish Jesuit Josaphat Kuntsevich (now canonised, Saint Joseph Kuntsevich of Polotsk), admitted that he freely drowned the Orthodox, chopped off their heads and profaned their churches; he ordered their dead bodies to be thrown to dogs."

Pope Saint Pius X stated: "Russia is the greatest enemy of the Church."

Saint Benjamin, Metropolitan of Kiev, the first of the Russian bishops to be martyred by the Bolsheviks in 1918, stated:
"You offer us unification…and all the while, behind our backs, your Latin priests are sowing ruin amongst our flocks"

Message #7
Posted by "Sean O L"

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

Let me say that I am ashamed for the actions of many bad persons—both clerical and laity—in the Latin Church during the many past centuries. I am proud that Pope John Paul II has publicly apologized for the sins of her sons during those times.

I am hopeful that there will be greater unification of all Christians of good will.
Message #8
Posted by "Fr Ambrose"

Dear Sean,

As to his (Yurchyk's) Apostolic Succession? By Orthodox theology it is meaningless and Yuri is simply a layman in schism.

"Patriarch" Filaret Denisenko of the UOC-KP, once a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, has been synodically deposed and excommunicated. In Orthodox understanding (we have a different view of Apostolic Succession) this makes all his subsequent sacramental actions without grace. He simply is NOT a bishop and he has no episcopal nor even priestly powers. To put it simply, when he says: "This is My body..." the Holy Spirit ignores him. The bread remains bread. And when he says: "I ordain you a priest/bishop.." the Holy Spirit also ignores him. The Spirit cannot be "manipulated" to create schism and division in the Church.
Message #9
Posted by "Sean O L"

"Mickey Mouse receives Donald Duck"

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

  1. Schismatic and excommunicated Thucite—Pivarunas is no more than a layman, without any power to receive even a genuine person into communion with the Catholic Church. As a sedevacantist, Pivarunas believes that the Catholic Church of the Latin Tradition does not possess a Pope—that the Roman See is vacant, and probably the last pope to occupy it was Pope Pius XII. Some sedevacantists go so far as to claim that the last valid pope was Pope Pius X!

  2. "Bishop" Yuri Yurchyk—also a schismatic and excommunicated person—is ecclesially powerless in virtue of his un-canonical and invalid "consecration" (presumably by "Patriarch" Filaret Denisenko or a person "consecrated" by him), and has specifically not sought to be "reconciled" with the Latin Church under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

  3. Both Pivarunas and Yurchyk, being laymen, simulate the Sacraments when they attempt to perform the Sacred Liturgy, and to distribute the other Sacraments; thus they compound their blasphemies with further sacrileges and crimes.

  4. Putting it in a profane way—it is Mickey Mouse receiving Donald Duck—but, with far greater complications.

The reader is requested to read the above exchange—this love-feast between "Sean O L" and "Dear Fr. Ambrose"—carefully before proceeding, since what I have written hereafter, although harsh, is in context of this "loving inter-exchange"!

I hope also, that the reader will have noted this strange, abnormal spectacle: this "love-feast" between two vicious anti-Catholics, their coy courtship of each other, with dainty, mincing steps....

Sure Damnation: The Neo-Pharisees' Program & Agenda

There is a class of rabid heretics, the Neo-Conservatives, or Neo-Cons, out there, who make it their mission to falsify and to mislead, in order to create a protective envelope whereby the crimes of the Roman Modernist heresiarchs (the Antipopes John XXIII-II, Paul 6, John-Paul I & John-Paul II) are either not made known, or misrepresented as legitimate actions, and thereby prevent souls from fleeing from that vile thing called the Antichurch, so that, returning to Catholicism, they may secure their salvation.

On mature consideration, it becomes obvious that it is wrong to represent the term "Neo-Con" as being an abbreviation of "Neo-Conservative"; in fact, it is more appropriately an abbreviation of "Neo-Confidence-tricksters": These men are the Con-men of spirituality!

Falsifiers! Perverters of souls! Murderers of souls! Men who seek to shepherd souls into hell! Who live in daily terror that some soul may have escaped them, escaped eternal damnation! Who in fear and trembling, go down on their knees and beg their master, Satan, for more opportunities, and vow to re-double their efforts at bringing souls to damnation!

Such men are "Matt1916", Karl Keating, Robert Fox, Brian Harrison, David Armstrong, etc. Simulators of Catholicism, simulating Catholics! And then there are the "Three Musketeers" of Infernum, self-appointed apologists of Satan: John Loughnan, William Grossklas and James Akin. Loughnan is the subject of this article.

(Fr. Morrison of gives a slightly larger list:
Bill Basile, Terence Boyle, Thomas Bottenkotter, Scott Hahn, E. Michael Jones, Steven Hand, Peter Kreeft, Paul Likoudis, Peter Stravinskas, Peter Vere, Gary Wills, etc.
Thankfully, I do not have so extensive an experience of these precious characters!)

Loughnan, or to give his full name, F. John Loughnan, is an Australian of Irish descent, who also goes under the name "Sean Ó Lachtnáin". In the above exchange, he uses the short form "Sean O L".
Sean Ó Lachtnáin / F. John Loughnan,
"The Real Absence Association", 10 Glendale Drive, Chirnside Park, Victoria 3116, Australia.
Mirror site:
E-Mail: [email protected]
E-Mail: [email protected]

William P. Grossklas
609 Spring Road, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126. Tel: 630-530-2973 / Fax 630-530-2976
E-Mail: [email protected]

James Akin
"Nazareth Resouce Library" (Ought to be "Aveneth", for his Temple is Beth-Aven!)
E-Mail: [email protected]

The Bible describes the work of such vicious heretics and malefactors thus:
"Son of man, prophesy thou against the prophets of Israel that prophesy: and thou shalt say to them that prophesy out of their own heart: Hear ye the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit, and see nothing... Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to them that sew cushions under every elbow: and make pillows for the heads of persons of every age to catch souls: and when they caught the souls of my people, they gave life to their souls."

"Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold I declare against your cushions, wherewith you catch flying souls: and I will tear them off from your arms: and I will let go the soul that you catch, the souls that should fly. And I will tear your pillows, and will deliver my people out of your hand, neither shall they be any more in your hands to be a prey: and you shall know that I am the Lord. Because with lies you have made the heart of the just to mourn, whom I have not made sorrowful: and have strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his evil way, and live. Therefore you shall not see vain things, nor divine divinations any more, and I will deliver my people out of your hand: and you shall know that I am the Lord."
(Ezechiel 13:2, 3,18; 13:20)
(Douay Commentary: Sew cushions, etc.... Viz., by making people easy in their sins, and promising them impunity.-Ibid. They gave life to their souls... That is, they flattered them with promises of life, peace, and security.)

2 Timothy 3:1-13 (Knox Version) — 1 Be sure of this, that in the world's last age there are perilous times coming.

2 Men will be in love with self, in love with money, boastful, proud, abusive; without reverence for their parents, without gratitude, 3 without scruple, without love, without peace; slanderers, incontinent, strangers to pity and to kindness; 4 treacherous, reckless, full of vain conceit, thinking rather of their pleasures than of God.

5 They will preserve all the outward form of religion, although they have long been strangers to its meaning. From these, too, turn away.

6 They count among their number the men that will make their way into house after house, captivating weak women whose consciences are burdened with sin; women swayed by shifting passions, 7 who are for ever inquiring, yet never attain to recognition of the truth.

8 Moses found rivals in Jannes and Mambres; just so the men I speak of set themselves up in rivalry against the truth, men whose minds are corrupt, whose faith is counterfeit; 9 yet they will come to little, they will soon be detected, like those others, in their rash folly.

13 The rogues and mountebanks go on from bad to worse, at once impostors and dupes.
And again:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (KV) — 3 The time will surely come, when men will grow tired of sound doctrine, always itching to hear something fresh; and so they will provide themselves with a continuous succession of new teachers, as the whim takes them, 4 turning a deaf ear to the truth, bestowing their attention on fables instead.

This is the Internet Confraternity of the Itching Ears—League of Modernist Mountebanks, over which Sean Ó Lachtnáin presides, with the able and valuable assistance of Grossy William and with the effeminate James Akin as Common Catamite!

Loughnan pretends to be a Christian, but is, on the contrary, obsessed with self-love, pride and conceit, and, by above all, an overpowering, vaporing hatred of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Church, which he makes it his life's mission to persecute...

He loves to pretend to be a Catholic, but, since he hates our Lord, he actually hates Catholicism too.

This hatred is a furious, vicious, rabid hatred.

This hatred demonstrates itself in many ways, more particularly his disregard for the Doctrine of Christ and by exalting heretics and their heresies. But more than anything else, this hatred is demonstrated by a morbid fear that souls may awaken to the horror of being members of the most abominable and apostate sect that has yet been seen in human history, the apostate, Roman Modernist sect founded by Roncalli, the antipope John XXIII-II, by means of his "Aggiornomento", his Robber-Council "Vatican II", and carried forward by his confederates and "successors" as heresiarchs: John Baptist Montini, Albino Luciani and Karol Wojtyla.

Recently, while researching for my page on the clerics of the Resistance, I found an article by Loughnan's close accomplice, William Grossklas, wherein he pretends, against the error of some persons who propagate the forbidden errors of Melanie Calvet, who had once been a seer of La Salette, that the expose of these errors was made by him and his Neo-Con. accomplices (

Taking that page, I have replied, utterly demolishing Grossklass' gross lies and pretensions (

But I also discovered another, even more curious page.

Yuri Yurchyk, Russian & Ukrainian Photianism

In updating my page on the "Resistance Clerics", based on my old page for the defunct UDI, I began to search the subject of Yuri Yurchyk once again. In doing so, I found this curious page wherein Loughnan slanders and calumniates Pivarunas and Yurchyk, teaming up in an ostentatious and shameless "love-feast" with a self-certified heretic and schismatic, a Photianist of the "Russian Orthodox" persuasion, in demonstrating beyond any doubt his hatred for Christ, His Church and for the truth in any form!

It is the "Catholic (sic!) Community Forum" ( where "Sean O L" / John Loughnan attacks Bishops Yuri Yurchyk and Mark Pivarunas, of the CMRI, who abjured and reconciled the former to the Catholic faith (

Yuri Yurchyk, for those who are unaware, was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church from Ukraine. The Ukrainians always chafed under the hegemony, spiritual and political, of the Russians. Originally, the senior-most bishop of all-Russia, a term which includes Russia, Ukraine and Byelo-Russia (White Russia) was the Patriarch of Kiev, the capital of King St. Vladimir, who "baptized" all-Russia. However, the Princes of Muscovy who came to dominate all-Russia following the collapse of the Mongolian Empire, unilaterally transferred the Patriarchate to Moscow. The "Ecumenical Patriarch" of Constantinopolis, the Grand Heresiarch of the Byzantine or Photianist schismatics, was forced to acquiesce in this patently un-canonical action, being left with no choice. The "Canonicity" of this transfer of the Patriarchate of Kiev to Moscow thus rests on the pretensions and encroachments of a civil ruler on the rights of a church, which render it far more than merely questionable. Moreover, "canonicity" in this question is a relative term, since schismatics are, in themselves, not canonical at all!

(The Catholic Church has never recognized the Photianist Heresiarchs' claim to be the "Patriarch of Constantinopolis." Being the Ordinary of a church depends on one being provided jurisdiction by the Pope, and obviously, the Photianists, having departed from Christ and His Church, could not pretend to receive jurisdiction from the Pope, whom they contemn and oppose to the face. Rather, in opposition to these Photianist, Cacodoxist Anti-Patriarchs, the True Church has consistently opposed True Patriarchs, the Catholic Patriarchs of Constantinopolis.)

Later on, (I believe under "Czar Peter the Great"), the office of the Patriarch of Moscow was suppressed and was replaced by a "Synod", packed with men who were the creatures of the Czars of all-Russia. Thus, the "Russian Orthodox Church" has been reduced to a mere organ or bureau of the Russian State, an organ of imperial preferment!

When, under the onslaught of the Communist usurpers, the Czarist Empire collapsed, Ukraine was able to resume its independent existence. Simultaneously, the Ukrainian Photianists re-established their independent church of Ukraine, independent of Russian imperialism.

When, however, Communist Russia emerged triumphantly from the contest with the White Russians, it once again encroached upon the Ukraine, and together with this re-imposed slavery, came the restoration of Russian religious hegemony, as an extension and tool of Russian imperialism. The Autocephalous Photianists fled into exile and continued their existence in the US and in the rest of the Free World.

When the Soviet Union, which supplanted Czarist Russia, collapsed, Ukraine regained her long lost independence. With this, once again arose the movement to restore the fortunes of the Ukrainian Church, to achieve autocephaly as had other, much smaller churches of the Photianist Communion, such as the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Rumanians, etc.

This resulted in the effort by the Autocephalous Ukrainian Photianists to return and resume operations in their homeland. A disciplinary dispute, however, between Filaret, who represented the Ukrainians who had so far cooperated with Russian imperialism, and the exiles, precipitated the secession of Filaret, who thereafter established his faction as the restored Kievan Patriarchate, or the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Patriarchate of Kiev.

The other group, that of the returned former exiles organized as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the restoration (1990) in the Ukraine of the National Orthodox Church, returning from Exile, and which had been originally re-established during Ukraine's liberation (1917-1942) from Russia.

To complicate matters, and to confuse people, the Russians nominally spun-off their operations in Ukraine as the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church"—a transparent stratagem to pre-empt Ukrainian Autocephaly! Yet, Ukrainian nationalists have not bought this trick—this Ghost-Church, this shadow without substance—and insist on an authentically Ukrainian Photianism. In order to distinguish the Russians from the Ukrainians, who both use the same name, the former are commonly called the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Patriarchate of Moscow". Actually, if the Government of Ukraine wanted it, it could rightly have insisted that the Russians not use this fraudulent name, but call themselves by their own name—the Russian Orthodox Church!

Yuri Yurchyk was apparently a bishop in Filaret's faction, being designated the bishop of Donetsk & Luhansk. Yurchyk apparently developed a pro-Catholic attitude, being influenced by the Fatimist movement initiated by the apparitions of our Lady at Fatima, Portugal. Therefore, he approached Bishop Mark Pivarunas and was by him abjured and received back into the Catholic Church.

(It should not be so very surprising that a Ukrainian "Orthodox" bishop has returned to Catholicism. Since the conquest of Western Ukraine by Poland, that area had returned to Catholicism, a move formalized by the Union of Brest-Litovsk, thus inaugurating the Ruthenian Uniate Church. When Russia came to dominate, it forced many of these Uniate Catholics to apostatize to Photianism, but there remains a strong pro-Catholic attitude among these).

Loughnan: "Pope St. Pius X A Bad Man"

The entire exchange between Loughnan and his darling friend, the heretic and schismatic "Dear Fr. Ambrose" evokes a sodomitical relationship between two queers in love with each other, and engaging in a public "love-feast", sodomising each other!

This heretic and schismatic "Fr. Ambrose" goes on to slander two Catholic saints, including a Pope, St. Pius X, and what is the response of Loughnan, self-certified Defender of the Faith? A sharp rebuke?

Perish the though!

Dear O'Lactating falls all over himself in order to placate his darling butch "Fr. Ambrose"!

Loughnan nonchalantly pitches Pope St. Pius X overboard in order to remove the irritation that his presence offers his darling butch "Fr. Ambrose"!

Indeed, in order to appease his darling butch, O'Lactating even shamelessly slanders Pope St. Pius X, one of the greatest saints of modern times, as a "bad man", stating, in direct response to the attack by his "Dear Fr. Ambrose" on Pope St. Pius X, that...
Let me say that I am ashamed for the actions of many bad persons—both clerical and laity—in the Latin Church during the many past centuries.

"And Genghis Khan defeated Attila the Hun in battle..."

Years ago, I had first encountered Loughnan's pages. In one of the initiatory pages, he spoke of the "credulous" attitude of Traditionalists he encountered, giving for an example, the alleged story told him, "And Genghis Khan defeated Attila the Hun in battle..."

Loughnan gives, in the exchange reproduced above, a quixotic account of the origin of Orders; he is not explicit, however, as to which sect he is referring — the Russian Orthodox Church or Filaret's. I reproduce this "account" here:
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church... "is a schismatic offshoot from the Russian Orthodox Church. Since they had no legally ordained bishops to ordain more priests, the original priests or bishops were 'ordained' by laying the hands of a dead bishop on their heads."
This is the one of the most fantastic pieces of nonsense that I have ever heard! This is the actual equivalent of Loughnan himself purveying stories of "And Genghis Khan defeated Attila the Hun in battle..."!

Loughnan's darling friend "Fr. Ambrose" does not contradict this cock-and-bull story put forward by Loughnan; a fact that reflects on his own integrity and honesty!

Let me point out to the reader the implications of this "love-feast" between these sodomites: If it is true that Filaret's faction does not possess true Orders, they having pretended to have received them from a dead man, then the "Ecumenical" Patriarch of Constantinopolis would not have dealt with this group at all. On the contrary, that Patriarch Bartholomew negotiated with Filaret's group shows what value he (Bartholomew) places both on Filaret's supposed "excommunication" and also on the allegation against the Orders possessed by the bishops of Filaret's faction.

Again, I am thoroughly puzzled by the pretension that the Filaretites did not have a valid bishop to consecrate them. What of Filaret himself, who was, prior to autocephaly, a Metropolitan Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church?

(As far as the Russian Orthodox Church itself is concerned, the Catholic Church has, by its actions down the ages, demonstrated that it has no doubts whatsoever as to the validity of the orders possessed by its members. Thus for example, the Union of Brest-Litovsk, etc.)

More "Quack! Quack!"

Sean O'Lactating blithely makes an allegation that can have no basis in fact:
It wouldn’t surprise me if what was behind the Pivarunas/Yurchyk liason is a desire (at least on the part of one of the parties) to strengthen claims to Apostolic Succession.
The fact is that while Sean O'Lactating may have hypnotized himself over the "invalidity" of the Orders / Episcopal Character possessed by both Pivarunas and Yurchyk, neither of these latter gentlemen share his momentous doubt. And it is obvious that if either of them did, they would have not wasted eight months, as they did, in order to ascertain that they truly have a meeting of minds. Again, that Yurchyk himself may be troubled by the nonsensical claims of Russian imperialists denying his own valid orders is beyond creditability.

Another thing is the evident contradictory attitude of Loughnan, according to whom, both Pivarunas and Yurchyk, all things considered, do not possess valid orders at all. How then can they give valid orders, one to the other? And if they did, how should this trouble Loughnan, "knowing" as he does, that neither possesses valid orders and therefore neither can validly consecrate?

Loughnan in Blunderland

Loughnan pretends to be a loyal member of his sect, which everyone knows is a poisonous, vicious sect, one that, above all other sects, hates and persecutes Christ Jesus.

But precisely, this (Loughnan's) sect is engaged in "dialogues" with several sects all over the world with the design of forging a One World Religion.

Therefore, on what basis and against what precise provocation from Filaret does Loughnan slander and calumniate Filaret and his sect? How does this jell with the efforts at "Ecumenism" that his (Loughnan's) sect desires?

I cannot see how these two positions can jell.

What will happen tomorrow when his sect begins to "dialogue" with Filaret's sect? Does Loughnan truly believe that this will not happen? Why does Loughnan so believe?

Either Loughnan is right and his sect ought not to engage in "ecumenism", or Loughnan is wrong and unfaithful, and has exceeded his authority and transgressed against the policies and doctrines of his sect. Only one of these can be true!

Filaret's Marriage and "Schism"

"Fr. Ambrose" pretends to be worried over Filaret being a married man. Apparently, that Filaret, a Metropolitan Bishop in the Russian Orthodox Church, was a married man, was not objectionable to the Russian Orthodox Church until after Ukraine regained its independence, and Filaret began to cooperate with Ukrainian nationalists in repudiating Russian hegemony over the "Orthodox Church" in Ukraine!

When Russophiles make allegations against Filaret, such as for example, that he is an "excommunicate", it must be remembered that Filaret incurred his "excommunication" solely and only because he represents the aspirations of the majority of the Ukrainian population, and of the Ukrainian State.

Filaret represents not merely himself, but also Presidents Kravchuk and Kuchma!

If, therefore, Filaret is "excommunicated", so are Kravchuk and Kuchma!

But the Russians do not have the guts to say that to their face—consider the political implications of provoking and alienating independent Ukraine! The Russians are compelled to be careful... But, by comparison, Filaret is their fall guy, their scapegoat, upon whom they are free to vent their frustrations at seeing the people they robbed and enslaved breaking free from Russia's chains!

(To put things in perspective: this problem with Russian imperialism and hegemony, leftover in the religious sphere from Russia's former political domination, is not restricted merely to the Ukraine, but extends to other countries, such as, for example, Estonia, whose "Orthodox Church" has also repudiated Moscow and declared Autocephaly, and which act has been acknowledged by the "Orthodox Patriarch" of Constantinopolis, to the displeasure of Russia!)

Let us get the true picture correct and precisely: Russia had never any claim or right over the Ukraine. It was an imperialist and colonialist power in the Ukraine, and it subjected the Ukrainians not only politically, but also religiously. There is, therefore, no basis to a pretension that Russia possess "canonical rights" over Ukraine. It possesses nothing of the sort. On the contrary, there is a good case for Kiev to claim "canonical rights" over Russia!

In comparison to the imperialist and colonialist attitude of the Russians, Filaret comes out far cleaner: On national TV, he informed the people that the unity moves involving his faction, the older autocephalous faction and the Patriarch of Constantinopolis is designed to create a unified Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, but that those under Moscow would continue to remain under Moscow.... I call that announcement rather extra-ordinarily generous, given the unprovoked aggressions of the Russophiles.
As announced on Ukrainian television by the head of UPTs-KP, Patriarch Filaret Denisenko of Kiev and all-Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew expressed support for the creation in Ukraine of an autocephalous Orthodox church since this "reflects historic traditions and current reality." According to Filaret, at the end of the unification process in Ukraine "there will be an independent Ukrainian church and there will be a church subordinate to Moscow."
But looking at this question from another angle, I cannot understand how Loughnan can object to Filaret being married and siring daughters, since his sect has no scruples in "dialoguing" with sects such as those of the Protestants and Anglicans, which have married bishops!

Take another fact: It is evident that the Photianist Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinopolis was obliged to entertain Filaret precisely because Filaret does not represent merely himself, but because of the pressure put by the Government and President of Ukraine on him (Bartholomew) to entertain Filaret as representative of Ukrainian aspirations!

That is, the Russians can get nowhere by merely seeking to flagellate and excoriate Filaret; they will need to flagellate and excoriate the Government and President of Ukraine also!

Do the Russians have the guts to do that?

Loughnan: Quack-Theologian... And Luciferian Heretic!

Before proceeding any further, the reader is requested to take a quick look at this page ( collating the Catholic Church's Magisterial teachings that an indelible character is imprinted by the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders, and that sinful clerics, and also heretics and schismatics, too, who possess valid orders, and who use the valid matter, form and possess valid intention, legitimately (though not morally) confect the sacraments....

The most quixotic part comes last.

Loughnan triumphantly flaunts his "major thesis", thus:
Both Pivarunas and Yurchyk, being laymen, simulate the Sacraments when they attempt to perform the Sacred Liturgy, and to distribute the other Sacraments; thus they compound their blasphemies with further sacrileges and crimes.
The Catholic Church has, consistently over the ages, taught, both in form of the Encyclicals, Bulls, Motu Proprios, etc. of the Popes, and the Decrees of Ecumenical Councils, etc., infallibly and with disciplinary sanctions against those who dare to contumaciously contradict Holy Mother Church, that validity does not depend on the moral characters of the parties involved, that those who are public sinners or excommunicates, schismatics, heretics or apostates, but possessing valid orders, can confect the Sacraments validly, if they use the valid form and matter and have the proper intention, and that they can validly ordain and consecrate men to the priesthood and Episcopacy, if they use the valid form and matter and have the proper intention, and that ordination and consecration, once validly performed, cannot be repeated without sacrilege. In practice, in a question of doubt, the Church permits the sub-conditional re-conferment of the sacraments....

"Fr. Ambrose" sets out the attitude that the Photianist schismatics take of the Operation of Orders and therefore of the Sacerdotal and Episcopal Character in men validly (keeping aside the question of liceity) ordained and consecrated.

Here, it must be noted that, unlike O'Lactating, who falls all over himself to sell Catholicism short, "Fr. Ambrose" does not pretend that there is no difference in perception between Photianism and Catholicity:
In Orthodox understanding (we have a different view of Apostolic Succession) this makes all his (Filaret's) subsequent sacramental actions without grace. He simply is NOT a bishop and he has no episcopal nor even priestly powers. To put it simply, when he says: "This is My body..." the Holy Spirit ignores him. The bread remains bread. And when he says: "I ordain you a priest/bishop.." the Holy Spirit also ignores him. The Spirit cannot be "manipulated" to create schism and division in the Church.
This attitude is that excommunicated priests and bishops cannot confect the sacraments validly; therefore such bishops cannot consecrate or ordain!

Photianists are not merely schismatics, they are also heretics. But in this point, their heresy is borrowed from the heresy of the Sardinian bishop, Lucifer of Cagliari, who denied that sinful bishops could confect the sacraments validly. Against the Luciferian heresy, the Catholic Church reiterated that even sinful clerics can confect the sacraments validly. It is true that this same heresy was also repeated by many other sects, such as the Donatists, Novatianists, Valdesians, etc.

But the Catholic Theological understanding is sharply different (see above), and this is a Doctrine on which Catholics cannot dissent—being the infallible decree of several Ecumenical Councils, tied in with pronouncements of "Anathema" upon those who deny this Catholic doctrine. And moreover, let it be noted, the Antichurch to which Loughnan belongs, has not repudiated this Catholic understanding of the operation of Orders, and thus of the Sacramental Character once imprinted.

Thus, for example, the Council of Trent:
#9: If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders, a character is not imprinted on the soul—that is, a kind of indelible spiritual sign whereby these sacraments cannot be repeated: Anathema sit!

#12: If anyone says that a minister in the state of mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that belong to effecting and conferring the sacraments, does not effect or confer the sacrament: Anathema sit!
The words "Anathema sit!" means "Let him be accursed!".

Yet, the brilliant Loughnan, pretends that, as a member of his "Ecumenistic" sect, he is empowered to dispense himself from his sect's continuation in upholding the Catholic understanding, and adopt instead the Photianist heresy on this subject.

Therefore, he is empowered to pretend that because Yurchyk was consecrated by Filaret, therefore he (Yurchyk) possesses no real or valid Orders. Likewise, our sodomitical friend pontificates that Bishop Mark Anthony Pivarunas, because he is a "Schismatic" (which is because he refuses to co-participate in a schism!), also does not possess valid orders!

Wow! This is unbelievable! This beggars belief!

But this is not all: We must consider also that, in the Catholic understanding, and as most famously reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolicae Curae, people who possess valid orders but who use defective or faulty rites do not ordain or consecrate validly. Now, numerous Traditionalists and even some Neo-Cons have demonstrated beyond doubt that the New Rites invented on the orders of, and under the auspices of, John Baptist Montini, the Modernist heresiarch and Antipope "Paul 6", fall under this category, so that men "ordained" under these new Montinian rites are not made priests, and that men "consecrated" under these new rites are not made bishops.

We have, for example, the case of Raymond Leo Burke, the "Archbishop" of St. Louis, and formerly "Bishop" of LaCrosse, the persecutor of Ryan St. Anne: Burke was "ordained" and also "consecrated" under these new rites, established in 1969, and who therefore is as much a layman as the Anglican "Archbishop of Canterbury"!

(The Website of the former "Archdiocese of St. Louis", provides the following information on Burke's ordination and consecration:
  1. Ordained a priest on June 29, 1975, at St. Peter Basilica, Vatican City State, by Pope Paul VI.

  2. Ordained a bishop at St. Peter Basilica by Pope John Paul II on January 6, 1995.
These dates are after the "new rites" came into force (1969). Therefore, Burke was neither validly ordained nor consecrated, and remains a layman!)

And, what is more, unlike the homosexual Sean O'Lactating and his darling butch "Fr. Ambrose", we are not making any of this out of thin air, but stand on the authority of the Church reiterated time and again, and typified by Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolicae Curae!

And in sharp contradistinction with Catholic Theology, our darling sodomite pretends that Pivarunas and Yurchyk, despite possessing valid orders, nevertheless cannot confect the sacraments, while mere laymen, such as "Archbishop" Burke can!

This is a truly "Topsy-turvy world"!

This is truly the Gospel of John Loughnan alias Sean O'Lactating, wherein "Genghis Khan defeated Attila the Hun in battle..."!

This is truly the Gospel of John Loughnan alias Sean O'Lactating, wherein Loughnan and his darling "Dear Fr. Ambrose" are busy playing Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, both giving and receiving in turns!

Yipee! Three hurrahs for queenie Loughnan!

Lúcio Mascarenhas

Post Script: Larry Flynt For Pope!

Loughnan also wrote:
I am proud that Pope John Paul II has publicly apologized for the sins of her sons during those times.
Loughnan's darling heresiarch and arch-Satanist, Wojtyla, it is true, is extremely, frantically, running around, apologizing to one and all for the Offense that Christ, His Claims and His Cross, represents, even as he just as frantically runs about offending Christ, sinning against the First Commandment.... It is a toss-up which of these is the greater evil... the greater abomination!

This monster (Wojtyla), the Mahatma Abominationishwara, is also the Patron of Sexual deviancies, of the sexual abuse perpetrated by his "clerics", and which he himself religiously practices:

If being a fornicator constitutes his "Supreme qualification" to be Pope, then, in truth, Larry Flynt is far better qualified!
©Lúcio Mascarenhas.
[Copyright Terms & Conditions].
Hosted by